Search

Previous literature has focused on impaired social and occupational functioning in Bipolar Disorder (BD), however this ignores people who may be functioning well or even exceptionally. This paper presents the first systematic review of how functioning is measured and the range of functioning observed in BD to aid applied research and practice in this area. Identified measures from studies reporting use of a social and/or occupational functioning measure in BD were organised according to frequency of use over the last 10 years, resulting in six measures (Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Functioning Assessment Short Test (FAST), Social and Occupational Functioning Scale (SOFAS), Social Adjustment Scale (SAS)), Social Functioning Scale (SFS) and LIFE-Range of Impaired Functioning (LIFE-RIFT). Descriptive statistics of sample scores were extracted and pooled to provide cross-study values for each measure. Around 16% of individuals with BD can be estimated to function at a high level, defined as those falling within two standard deviations of the mean score on each measure. Evidence of a ceiling effect for some measures suggests that BD functioning may have been underestimated during measure development. Future research is needed to further understand higher functioning in people with BD, and factors which may support this., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Access to structured psychological therapy recommended for bipolar disorder (BD) is poor. The UK NHS Improving Access to Psychological Therapies initiative commissioned a demonstration site for BD to explore the outcomes of routine delivery of psychological therapy in clinical practice, which this report summarises. All clinically diagnosed patients with BD who wanted a psychological intervention and were not in acute mood episode were eligible. Patients were offered a 10-session group intervention (Mood on Track) which delivered NICE congruent care. Outcomes were evaluated using an open (uncontrolled), pre-post design. Access to psychological therapy increased compared to preceding 6 years by 54%. 202 people began treatment; 81% completed >5 sessions; median 9 sessions (range 6-11). Pre-post outcomes included personal recovery (primary outcome), quality of life, work and social functioning, mood and anxiety symptoms (secondary outcomes). Personal recovery significantly improved from pre to post-therapy; medium effect-size (d = 0.52). Secondary outcomes all improved (except mania symptoms) with smaller effect sizes (d = 0.20-0.39). Patient satisfaction was high. Use of crisis services, and acute admissions were reduced compared to pre-treatment. It is possible to deliver group psychological therapy for bipolar disorder in a routine NHS setting. Improvements were observed in personal recovery, symptoms and wider functioning with high patient satisfaction and reduced service use., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Relatives play a key role in supporting people with psychosis at all stages of recovery, but this can be associated with high levels of distress. Family interventions, with an international evidence base, improve outcomes for service users but little is known about their impact on relatives' outcomes. This review of published evaluations aimed to assess whether family interventions are effective in improving outcomes for relatives of people with psychosis, to identify the key components of effective intervention packages, and to identify methodological limitations to be addressed in future research. Fifty studies were identified which evaluated an intervention to support relatives against a control group, and in which outcomes for the relatives were reported. Thirty (60%) studies showed a statistically significant positive impact of the intervention on at least one relatives' outcome category. Eleven key intervention components were identified across all 50 studies, but there was no evidence that the presence or absence of any of these key components reliably distinguished effective from ineffective interventions. Methodological quality of studies was generally poor with only 11 studies rated as adequate using the Clinical Trial Assessment Measure (CTAM). Recommendations to improve future research include larger samples; better defined interventions and controls; true randomisation and blind assessors; clearly specified primary outcomes; pre-published analysis plans that account appropriately for missing data and clustering of data; a consensus on the most relevant outcomes to assess and valid and reliable measures to do so. Alternative research designs need to be considered to evaluate more recent approaches which focus on family support, personalised to meet individual need, and offered as an integral part of complex clinical services., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Interventions for people suffering from borderline personality disorder (BPD), such as dialectical behaviour therapy, often include a problem-solving component. However, there is an absence of published studies examining the problem-solving abilities of this client group. In this study, the social problem-solving (SPS) abilities of three groups of participants were assessed: a BPD group (n=25), a clinical control (CC) group (n=25) procedure and a non-clinical control (NCC) group (n=25). SPS ability was assessed using the means-end problem-solving (MEPS) procedure and the Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised (SPSI-R). The BPD group exhibited deficits in their SPS abilities, however the majority of these deficits were not specific to the BPD group but were also found in the CC group, indicating that a common factor between these two groups, such as negative affect, may account for these observed deficits. Specific SPS deficits were identified in the BPD group: they provided less specific solutions on the MEPS and reported higher levels of negative problem orientation and a more impulsive/carelessness style towards solving social problems. The results of this study provide empirical support for the use of problem-solving interventions with people suffering from BPD.

The ways in which people think about illness experiences have been associated with a variety of important behaviours and emotional responses in patients, carers, and professionals. Some of these responses have been shown to be related to outcome. Explicit models such as the self-regulation model (SRM) [Leventhal, H., Nerenz, D. R., & Steele, D. F. (1984). Illness representations and coping with health threats. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), A handbook of psychology and health. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 219-252.] have been shown to be useful in highlighting key beliefs across a wide range of different physical illnesses. The specific beliefs about mental illness that have been assessed have been varied and largely without a common theoretical framework. This has resulted in a literature from which it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. The central aim of this paper is to assess the applicability of the SRM to mental illness. To this end, we review studies to date that have examined the beliefs that people with a mental illness have about their experiences. In addition, we review studies that have examined the beliefs of relatives of people with a mental illness and professionals who work with this population. We assess to what extent these studies are consistent with the SRM before suggesting ways in which the model could be further developed and tested. The SRM is presented as a useful framework for more advanced investigations into the function of beliefs about mental illness and how these can be modified in order to effect outcome. Developing psychological theories common to both physical and mental health may eventually result in an integrated approach in which mental illness becomes less stigmatised within the treatment setting.