Search

ObjectivesTo investigate the effects of a mindfulness-based family psychoeducation (MBFPE) intervention on caregivers and the young adults with first-episode psychosis in mental health care.MethodsSixty-five caregivers were randomly assigned to the MBFPE program (n = 33) or an ordinary family psychoeducation (FPE) program (n = 32). Eighteen young adults in recovery (YAIR) also participated in the study. All of the participants completed the assessments before participating in the intervention (T1), after the intervention (T2), and at 9-month follow-up (T3).ResultsIntention-to-treat analyses were conducted. The caregivers reported a significant and large effect size on positive caregiving experiences based on a Time × Group analysis (g = 0.862, p = 0.006). Among the YAIR participants, between-group differences were significant in their perceptions of caregivers’ expressed emotions, including large effect sizes of perceived criticism (g = 1.396, p = 0.049) and hostility (g = 1.444, p = 0.043). Caregiver demographics, including age, education level, socioeconomic status, and number of family members, were found to moderate the effect sizes of the variables studied.ConclusionThis study provides evidence of the effects of MBFPE programs on the outcomes of caregivers and the young adults with first-episode psychosis in their care. Specifically, the MBFPE program in this study played a greater role in promoting positive caregiving experiences and changing caregivers’ expressed emotions, especially their expressed criticism of YAIR, compared with the regular FPE program. Therefore, the application of mindfulness training to promote family care and YAIR recovery should be encouraged.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03688009.

Background: Collection and reporting of adverse events (AEs) and their relatedness to study treatment, known commonly as attribution, in clinical trials is mandated by regulatory agencies (the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration). Attribution is assigned by the treating physician using judgment based on various factors including patient's baseline status, disease history, and comorbidity as well as knowledge about the safety profile of the study treatments. We evaluate the patterns of AE attribution (unrelated, unlikely, possibly, probably, and definitely related to the treatment) in treatment, symptom intervention (cancer patients) and cancer prevention (participants at high risk for cancer) setting. Materials and methods: Nine multicenter placebo-controlled trials (two treatment, two symptom intervention, and five cancer prevention) were analysed separately (2155 patients). Frequency and severity of AEs were summarized by arm. Attribution and percentage of repeated AEs whose attribution changed overtime were summarized for the placebo arms. Percentage of physician over- or under-reporting of AE relatedness was calculated for the treatment arms using the placebo arm as the reference. Results: Across all trials and settings, a very high proportion of AEs reported as related to treatment were classified as possibly related, a significant proportion of AEs in the placebo arm were incorrectly reported as related to treatment, and clinician-reported attribution over-estimated the rate of AEs related to treatment. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and neurosensory were the common AEs that were over reported by clinician as related to treatment. Conclusions: These analyses demonstrate that assigning causality to AE is a complex and difficult process that produces unreliable and subjective data. In randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials where data are available to objectively assess relatedness of AE to treatment, attribution assignment should be eliminated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]