Intensive in-patient and community intervention versus routine care after attempted suicide. A randomised controlled intervention study. Randomized controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy for repeated consultations for medically unexplained complaints: a feasibility study in Sri Lanka. Cognitive behaviour therapy for violent men with antisocial personality disorder in the community: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Evaluation of the effectiveness of professionally guided self-care for people with multiple sclerosis living in the community: a randomized controlled trial. A controlled evaluation of inpatient family intervention. I. Preliminary results of the six-month follow-up. An intervention to overcome clinical inertia and improve diabetes mellitus control in a primary care setting: Improving Primary Care of African Americans with Diabetes (IPCAAD) 8. Improving accrual of older persons to cancer treatment trials: a randomized trial comparing an educational intervention with standard information: CALGB 360001. Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer.
A randomised clinical trial was carried out in suicide attempters to assess clinical efficacy of an intensive psychosocial intervention compared with treatment as usual.
                Two hundred and seventy-four suicide attempters presenting for medical treatment were randomly assigned to either intensive psychosocial treatment or 'care as usual'. Intensive psychosocial treatment consisted of brief admission to a special crisis-intervention unit and problem-solving aftercare. 'Care as usual' included any form of treatment the assessing clinicians thought appropriate. Psychological well-being was evaluated by the SCL-90 and the Hopelessness Scale at 3, 6 and 12 months following entry in the study.
                No differences in outcome were found. The probability of repeat suicide attempts in the 12-month follow-up was 0.17 for patients in the experimental group and 0.15 for the control group. There were no differences in ratings on the SCL-90 and the Hopelessness Scale. Patients in the experimental group attended significantly more out-patient treatment sessions.
                General implementation of an intensive in-patient and community intervention programme for suicide attempters does not seem justified. Research on the management and the outcome of treatment of medically unexplained symptoms is very limited. Development of simple but effective techniques for treatment and demonstration of their effectiveness when applied in primary health care are needed.
                A randomized controlled trial was carried out with follow-up assessments at 3 months after baseline assessments using the Short Explanatory Model Interview (SEMI), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-30), Bradford Somatic Inventory (BSI) and patient satisfaction on a visual analogue scale. The study was carried out in a general out-patient clinic in Sri Lanka. The intervention group received six, 30 min sessions based on the principles of cognitive behavioural therapy over a period of 3 months. The control group received standard clinical care.
                Eighty patients out of the 110 patients referred, were eligible. Sixty-eight were randomly allocated equally to the control and treatment groups. All 34 in the treatment group accepted the treatment offer and 22 completed between three and six sessions. At 3 months, 24 in the treatment and 21 in the control group completed follow-up assessments. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed significant differences in mean scores of outcome measures (adjusted for baseline scores) between control and intervention groups respectively--complaints 6.1 and 3.8 (P = 0.001), GHQ 10.4 and 6.3 (P = 0.04), BSI score 15.6 and 132 (P < 0-01), visits 7.9 and 3.1 (P = 0.004).
                Intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy is feasible and acceptable to patients with medically unexplained symptoms from a general out-patients clinic in Sri Lanka. It had a significant effective in reducing symptoms, visits and distress, and in increasing patient satisfaction. Little information exists on treatment effectiveness in antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). We investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of carrying out a randomized controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) in men with ASPD who were aggressive.
                This was an exploratory two-centre, randomized controlled trial in a community setting. Fifty-two adult men with a diagnosis of ASPD, with acts of aggression in the 6 months prior to the study, were randomized to either treatment as usual (TAU) plus CBT, or usual treatment alone. Change over 12 months of follow-up was assessed in the occurrence of any act of aggression and also in terms of alcohol misuse, mental state, beliefs and social functioning.
                The follow-up rate was 79%. At 12 months, both groups reported a decrease in the occurrence of any acts of verbal or physical aggression. Trends in the data, in favour of CBT, were noted for problematic drinking, social functioning and beliefs about others.
                CBT did not improve outcomes more than usual treatment for men with ASPD who are aggressive and living in the community in this exploratory study. However, the data suggest that a larger study is required to fully assess the effectiveness of CBT in reducing aggression, alcohol misuse and improving social functioning and view of others. It is feasible to carry out a rigorous randomized controlled trial in this group. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of a patient-focused professionally guided self-care programme for the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) in the community.
                This was a single-blind randomized controlled trial.
                The study was conducted with people with MS living in the community.
                Two hundred and seventy-eight people with MS were invited to take part in the study. One hundred and eighty-nine people consented to take part (68%). Of these 183 began the study and 169 (92.3%) completed it. Seventy-three individuals were in the intervention group and 96 were in the control group.
                The intervention comprised discussion of self-care based on client priorities, using an information booklet about self-care.
                These included the Barthel Index, a measure of mobility, the SF-36, and the Standard Day Dependency Record (SDDR) which measures the need for assistance with daily activities. Assessments were conducted at baseline and again six months later.
                Changes in health status were small. However, at follow-up the intervention group had better SF-36 health scores, in mental health (p = 0.04), and vitality (p = 0.05) and considered help with daily activities to be less essential, as measured by the SDDR (p = 0.04), than the control group. Participants in the intervention group had maintained levels of independence at follow-up (p = 0.62) while the control group showed a significant decrease in independence (p= 0.001).
                This intervention could be a useful aid for health professionals who are supporting people with MS living in the community. Although family intervention is practiced in most psychiatric hospitals, there are no adequately controlled studies of its efficacy. This study was designed to answer, in part, the following question: What is the relative efficacy of hospitalization with family intervention as compared with hospitalization without family intervention for patients with major psychiatric disorders who are in need of hospital treatment and for whom both treatments are judged clinically feasible? This is our first report, presenting preliminary data on six-month follow-up for the first three quarters of the total sample of 144 patients (80 with schizophrenic disorder and 64 with major affective disorder). Although clinical trials have shown that proper management of diabetes can improve outcomes, and treatment guidelines are widespread, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in the United States are rising. Since process measures are improving, poor glycemic control may reflect the failure of health care providers to intensify diabetes therapy when indicated--clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions aimed at health care provider behavior could overcome this barrier and improve glycemic control.
                In a 3-year trial, 345 internal medicine residents were randomized to be controls or to receive computerized reminders providing patient-specific recommendations at each visit and/or feedback on performance every 2 weeks. When glucose levels exceeded 150 mg/dL (8.33 mmol/L) during visits of 4038 patients, health care provider behavior was characterized as did nothing, did anything (any intensification of therapy), or did enough (if intensification met recommendations).
                At baseline, residents did anything for 35% of visits and did enough for 21% of visits when changes in therapy were indicated, and there were no differences among intervention groups. During the trial, intensification increased most during the first year and then declined. However, intensification increased more in the feedback alone and feedback plus reminders groups than for reminders alone and control groups (P<.001). After 3 years, health care provider behavior in the reminders alone and control groups returned to baseline, whereas improvement with feedback alone and feedback plus reminders groups was sustained: 52% did anything, and 30% did enough (P<.001 for both vs the reminders alone and control groups). Multivariable analysis showed that feedback on performance contributed independently to intensification and that intensification contributed independently to fall in HbA1c (P<.001 for both).
                Feedback on performance given to medical resident primary care providers improved provider behavior and lowered HbA1c levels. Similar approaches may aid health care provider behavior and improve diabetes outcomes in other primary care settings. To design and test a geriatric educational intervention to improve accrual of cancer patients age 65 years and older to cooperative group-sponsored treatment trials.
                Main member institutions of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) and its affiliates were randomly assigned to receive standard information (n = 73) or educational intervention (n = 53). Standard information included CALGB Web site access and periodic notification about existing trials. The geriatric educational intervention included standard information plus: (1) an educational seminar; (2) educational materials; (3) a list of available protocols for use on charts; (4) a monthly e-mail and mail reminders for 1 year; and (5) a case discussion seminar. The main outcome was percentage of accrual of older persons to phase II and III treatment protocols after study initiation compared with baseline.
                There were 3,032 patients entered onto trials in the baseline year, and 2,160 and 1,239 during the 2 years postintervention, respectively. Overall percentage of accrual of older patients was 37% at baseline, and 33% and 31% during the first and second years after intervention. There was no improvement in accrual in the intervention versus control arm: 36% v 32% in the first year and 31% v 31% in the second year.
                Accrual of older patients was not increased by this intervention. Reasons for lack of effect include low intervention intensity, high baseline accrual rates, and closure of several high-accruing protocols during the study. More intense and multifaceted approaches will be needed to change physician (and patient) behavior and to increase accrual of older persons to clinical trials. To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received.
                Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received.
                There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P =.001).
                Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.
This review notes a preference in more recent studies for less aggressive care options for treatment of BL. However, the evidence for the relative effectiveness of interventions to treat BL is not strong as studies were small, underpowered and prone to both systematic and random error. We included one additional trial without change of conclusions.