Skip to main content
Cambridge Open Access logoLink to Cambridge Open Access
. 2018 May 25;48(16):2637–2657. doi: 10.1017/S0033291718001125

Telephone-delivered psychosocial interventions targeting key health priorities in adults with a psychotic disorder: systematic review

Amanda L Baker 1, Alyna Turner 1, Alison Beck 1,, Katherine Berry 2, Gillian Haddock 2, Peter J Kelly 3, Sandra Bucci 2
PMCID: PMC6236444  PMID: 29798730

Abstract

Background

The mental and physical health of individuals with a psychotic illness are typically poor. Access to psychosocial interventions is important but currently limited. Telephone-delivered interventions may assist. In the current systematic review, we aim to summarise and critically analyse evidence for telephone-delivered psychosocial interventions targeting key health priorities in adults with a psychotic disorder, including (i) relapse, (ii) adherence to psychiatric medication and/or (iii) modifiable cardiovascular disease risk behaviours.

Methods

Ten peer-reviewed and four grey literature databases were searched for English-language studies examining psychosocial telephone-delivered interventions targeting relapse, medication adherence and/or health behaviours in adults with a psychotic disorder. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses.

Results

Twenty trials [13 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)] were included, involving 2473 participants (relapse prevention = 867; medication adherence = 1273; and health behaviour = 333). Five of eight RCTs targeting relapse prevention and one of three targeting medication adherence reported at least 50% of outcomes in favour of the telephone-delivered intervention. The two health-behaviour RCTs found comparable levels of improvement across treatment conditions.

Conclusions

Although most interventions combined telephone and face-to-face delivery, there was evidence to support the benefit of entirely telephone-delivered interventions. Telephone interventions represent a potentially feasible and effective option for improving key health priorities among people with psychotic disorders. Further methodologically rigorous evaluations are warranted.

Key words: Cardiovascular risk, medication compliance, psychosocial telephone intervention, psychotic disorder, relapse


Cardiovascular disease (CVD), relapse and poor adherence to psychiatric medication are key health priorities for people living with a psychotic disorder. Life expectancy is 12–19 years shorter than that of the general population (Laursen, 2011), with CVD the single largest cause of death among this group (Brown et al., 2000). Rates of major health risk behaviours associated with CVD (smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol use and low fruit and vegetable intake) are also elevated (Galletly et al., 2012; Morgan et al., 2012). Wellbeing is further compromised by high rates of relapse (Brissos et al., 2011) and although medication can reduce relapse (Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2012) rates of non-compliance are as high as 50% (Lacro et al., 2002) and early discontinuation is common (Lieberman et al., 2005).

Importantly, increasing evidence supports the role of psychological interventions (e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy, family therapy) for improving symptoms (Wykes et al., 2008; Jauhar et al., 2014), reducing relapse (Bucci et al., 2016; Oud et al., 2016), improving medication adherence (Barkhof et al., 2012) and modifying health risk behaviours (Baker et al., 2009; Banham and Gilbody, 2010; Baker et al., 2012). However, of those likely to benefit from psychological interventions, only 10% or less have access (Gulliver et al., 2010; Haddock et al., 2014; Schizophrenia Commission, 2015). Improving access to psychosocial interventions is, therefore, an important priority if we are to improve the wellbeing of individuals living with a psychotic illness. Contrary to assumptions that people with a psychotic disorder do not have access to and/ or are unwilling to engage in technology, accumulating evidence [e.g. (Firth et al., 2016; Gay et al., 2016)] suggests that the potential to use technology such as telephone-based intervention delivery is huge.

As far as the authors are aware, there has been only one previous systematic review of telephone-based interventions for mental health problems. However, people with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder were included in only one study (Leach and Christensen, 2006). A more recent systematic review of telepsychiatry (telephone, internet or videoconferencing) in the assessment and treatment of people with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder included six studies (Kasckow et al., 2014). However, neither review included studies targeting people with bipolar disorder. Moreover, neither reviewed the evidence for multiple key health priorities in adults with a psychotic disorder (namely relapse prevention, medication adherence and health behaviours).

Aims of the current review

Given the poor physical and mental health of people with a psychotic disorder, limited access to healthcare and the potential promise of telephone-delivered interventions, we aim to provide an overview and critical analysis of the current state of evidence for telephone-delivered psychosocial interventions for relapse prevention, medication adherence, and modifiable CVD risk behaviours among people with a psychotic disorder (schizophrenia spectrum disorder or bipolar disorder). The focus of this review will be on person-delivered interventions using the spoken word (i.e. interventions delivered entirely by text, web and/or automated systems were excluded) and one or more psychological strategies (see published protocol for further details; Beck et al., 2015).

Methods

Protocol and registration

This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (Registration Number CRD42015025402) and the protocol has been published (Beck et al., 2015).

Criteria for selecting studies for this review

Methods were informed by Cochrane Guidelines for systematic reviews (Higgins and Green, 2011) and are extensively detailed in the review protocol (Beck et al., 2015). The population of interest was adults (⩾18 years) with a psychotic disorder (as defined by any criteria). We included studies with populations involving adults with non-psychotic disorders only if more than 50% of participants had a psychotic disorder, or if data limited to those with psychotic disorders were available. The intervention of interest was telephone support targeting: (i) relapse prevention, (ii) adherence to psychiatric medication and/or (iii) smoking and other CVD health risk behaviours [see (Beck et al., 2015) for definitions]. These domains were targeted as they represent an important avenue for improving the health and wellbeing of adults with psychosis since they are common challenges that have profound implications for the individual and are amenable to change following psychological intervention. Telephone support was defined as a person delivered intervention of at least 10 min using spoken word and one or more psychological strategies (see published protocol for further details; Beck et al., 2015). The telephone support could be a standalone intervention or delivered in combination with other treatment components. However, studies with multiple components were only included if the telephone was the predominant method of intervention delivery (defined as ⩾ 50% of the total number of participant contacts conducted by telephone). Interventions delivered in any setting (e.g. community, hospital, rehabilitation or residential treatment centre, etc.) were included. The telephone support could be compared with inactive (e.g. standard care, waiting list control) and/or active controls (e.g. pharmacological and/or psychological alone and/or in combination with usual care) whereby telephone was not the predominant method of intervention delivery (e.g. individual, group, internet). Studies had to provide data for at least one of the following: (a) relapse, (b) medication adherence, (c) health risk behaviours/CVD risk, (d) process variables (e.g. treatment engagement) or (e) feasibility [see (Beck et al., 2015) for definitions]. Process variables are included in Supplementary File 1. Qualitative studies were the only study design excluded.

Search methods for identification of studies

Figure 1 summarises the procedure used to identify studies, (see online Supplementary Appendix 1 for the full MEDLINE search strategy). Abstract, title, keywords and subject headings specific to each of the identified databases were searched. All subject headings were exploded so that narrower terms were included. No limits were placed on publication year. Publications had to be available in English. Reference lists were hand searched to identify any additional publications. Publications were organised in reference manager Endnote. The first search was run in May 2015 and re-run just before final analyses (December 2016). Articles were identified and classified according to the following steps:

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flow diagram summarising systematic search identifying evaluations of telephone delivered psychosocial interventions for relapse prevention, medication adherence and health risk behaviours in adults with a psychotic disorder.

Step 1: Identification and screening

AKB performed the searches and reviewed the titles and abstracts of the identified 297 publications and used the inclusion criteria to exclude clearly ineligible articles. If eligibility was unclear, the full-text article was accessed.

Step 2: Eligibility and classification

The full-text version of 76 publications was manually reviewed and 42 publications were excluded. The remaining 34 were classified as ‘evaluation’, ‘review’, ‘discussion’ or ‘other’ according to published definitions (Beck et al., 2015).

Step 3: Cross-checking

The 76 publications from step two were cross-checked by ALB. The 22 studies independently classified as ‘evaluation’ were retained for further examination.

Data collection and analysis

Data extraction was performed by ALB and checked by AT, SB and KB. When multiple reports of the same study were identified (Simon et al., 2002, 2005, 2006) data were extracted separately and combined across data collection forms. Criteria for data extraction (detailed in the protocol; Beck et al., 2015) were adapted from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews (Higgins and Green, 2011) and the Downs and Black Scale (Downs and Black, 1998).

Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias

Methodological critique and assessment of risk of bias on individual studies were performed independently by ALB and AT, with final ratings made by consensus. As we included both randomised and non-randomised designs multiple tools were used.

Downs and Black scale

All studies were assessed against the Downs and Black Scale (Downs and Black, 1998). This scale is recommended by the Cochrane Guidelines for assessing the quality of non-randomised trials (Higgins and Green, 2011). Consistent with previous research (e.g. Baker et al., 2012) two items were not used. Scoring of the final item (power) was unclear so the following convention was used: 0 = no power calculation reported; 1 = power analysis reported, but insufficient power achieved and 2 = power analysis reported and sufficient power achieved. All other items were scored per published guidelines (Downs and Black, 1998) for a total maximum of 27, with higher scores reflecting greater methodological quality.

PEDro scale

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed against the 11 item Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (Maher et al., 2003), a widely implemented and validated tool for assessing the quality of randomised trials. As per above, the two items regarding blinding were not used (e.g. Spring et al., 2011, Baker et al., 2012). The remaining nine criteria were assigned a yes (1 point) or no (0 points) rating, and a quality score ranging from 0 to 8 points was calculated for each study.

Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool

Risk of bias (within and across all studies) was assessed using the Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool, as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions (Higgins and Green, 2011). Each item was judged as being high, low or unclear risk as per the criteria provided by Higgins and Green (Higgins and Green, 2011). Given the evidence that sequence generation and allocation concealment represent particularly important potential sources of bias, studies were deemed to be at the highest risk of bias if either item was scored as ‘high’ or ‘unclear’.

Summary measures

A study was considered to have a positive outcome if more than 50% of the reported outcome measures (primary and secondary) demonstrated a between-group difference in favour of the telephone group at the treatment end. Positive maintenance outcome(s) were identified when this effect was evident at short and/or medium and/or long-term follow-up (1–6; 7–12 and >12 months after intervention completion, respectively).

Synthesis of results

Comparability of study design and outcome measures across studies was assessed by a consultant statistician to determine the possibility of conducting meta-analyses on RCTs to examine effects on relapse, medication adherence and smoking and other health behaviours and CVD risk. A narrative synthesis of the findings was conducted, structured around intervention type, outcome, population and methodological quality. As Clinical Guidelines recommend an improved focus on personally meaningful recovery (e.g. quality of life, functioning) relative to traditional clinical outcomes (e.g. symptoms and relapse) in mental health care, to help inform clinical practice, the assessment, reporting and/ or change in these additional outcomes is also central to the structure of the review.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Across all studies, the total number of participants was 2473, with 867 in relapse prevention, 1273 in medication adherence and 333 in smoking and/or other health risk behaviour studies (see online Supplementary Table S1). The average age was 40.7 years (41.9 in relapse prevention, 39.5 in medication adherence and 42.2 in smoking and/or other CVD risk behaviours). Overall, the percentage of males across the studies was 50.1%. However, there was a higher percentage of males in studies of schizophrenia samples (64.5%) compared with studies of bipolar (37.7%) and mixed samples (44.2%). No study used a first episode sample.

Study characteristics

The 22 papers comprised a total of 20 trials, with Simon et al. (Simon et al. 2002, 2005, 2006) reporting on the same study. There were 16 controlled (Table 1) and four single-arm (Table 2) studies. Nine trials recruited people with bipolar disorder, six with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, four with schizophrenia and one a range of diagnoses (see online Supplementary Table S1). For the RCTs the telephone was the sole method of intervention delivery in one relapse prevention (Beebe, 2001) and three medication adherence trials (Salzer et al., 2004; Cook et al., 2008; Beebe et al., 2016). For the studies without a comparison condition, the intervention was delivered entirely by telephone for two relapse prevention (Miklowitz et al., 2012; Boardman et al., 2014) and one healthy lifestyle (Baker et al., 2014) study.

Table 1.

Summary of findings as a function of study focus (relapse prevention v. medication adherence v. smoking/healthy lifestyles) and comparison condition (active v. treatment as usual), structured in descending order according to the quality rating

Author study design Clinical group N Intervention delivery methods Outcomes Quality rating
Telephone condition Comparison condition
Phone Face to Facef Phone Face to Facef Primary Outcome in Favour of Secondary/Process Outcome in Favour of Downs & Black PEDRO Overall Risk of Bias
Relapse prevention
Telephone v. active comparison condition
Komatsu et al. (2013)
RCT
SZ Phone (n = 22) v. control (n = 23)
Weekly (? min) intervention
 × 12 months

Home visits (as indicated) to support intervention compliance

Weekly (? min) assessment ×12 months
Number of hospitalisations two treatment (9.1%) v. 8 control (34.8%), p = 0.071

Period until hospitalisation: Longer for treatment than control, log rank, 4.53, p = 0.0033

Risk of Rehospitalisation
Reduced in treatment v. control (hazard ratio = 0.21, 95% CI 0.04–0.99, p = 0.049; Number needed to treat = 4; 95% CI = 2.1–35.5)

Total number of rehospitalisation days:
37 intervention v. 710 control, p = 0.023.

Number of inpatient days on each hospitalisation
Lower for treatment (18.5 days) than control (88.8 days); p = 0.036
T


T


T




T


T
Non-hospitalised relapses (due to worsening psychiatric symptoms, based on physician judgement).
No significant difference between groups (p value not reported)



Psychiatric symptoms (BPRS) at the time of rehospitalisation
No significant difference between groups for mean change in total scores (p = 0.135)


Posthoc:
Mean change in total BPRS scores at relapse was less for treatment, changing by 11.3 points compared with 17.2 for control (p = 0.019)
NSD







NSD






T
21














6














Low














Castle et al. (2007)

Pilot RCT
BP Phone (n = 8)
v. Control (n = 9)

Weekly (? min) follow-up phone checks× 12 weeks

Weekly 90 min group ×  12 + Monthly 90 min booster group × 3

Weekly (? min) supportive phone calls × 12 weeks
Rates of relapse (meet DSM-IV criteria for manic or depressive episode, and/or required hospital admission)
Treatment = 1 v. control = 4 relapsed over the 10-month period (p = 0.3).
T General functioning (GAF): Significant improvement for Treatment: baseline M = 56.0 (s.d. = 12.0), 6m M = 72.0 (s.d. = 11.0) v. Control baseline M = 61.0 (s.d. = 10.0), 6m M = 62.0 (s.d. = 9.0); p < 0.05.

Quality of life (WHOQoL BREF):
Social relationships
Significant improvement for Treatment: baseline M = 52.0 (s.d. = 28.0), 6m M = 60.0 (s.d. = 14.0) v. Control baseline M = 68.0 (s.d. = 19.0), 6m = 66.0 (s.d. = 21.0), p<0.05).

Satisfaction with health/Physical Health/Psychological Health/Environment
No significant change within or between groups reported
Depression (MADRS) No significant change within or between groups reported

Mania (YMRS) No significant change within or between groups reported

Medication adherence (MARS) No significant change within or between groups reported
T





T







NSD





NSD



NSD


NSD
18


























8


























High


























Wenze et al.(2015)

Pilot RCT
BP Phone (n = 14) v. Control (n = 16)
11× (15–30 min) weekly for 1 month then at decreasing frequency for 4 months

3× individual
1× family across 1month



3× Ax's (Baseline, 3 and 6 months) & treatment providers given a written summary
Faster and greater improvement for treatment v. control (all p < 0.05) for: No secondary outcomes specified.
Process Variable:
18 6 High
Depression (QIDS-C; ƒ2 = 0.24) T Attendance: ?
Mania (CARS-M; ƒ2 = 0.37) T M = 2.71 (s.d. 0.73) in-person individual
Valued living (VLQ; ƒ2 = 0.31) T M = 0.36 (s.d. 0.50) in-person family
Functional impairment (WHODAS 2.0 Brief; ƒ2 = 0.12) T M = 9.50 (s.d. 4.67) individual phone
Significant Others completed M = 4.07 (s.d. 4.58) phone




‘Marginal effect in favour of treatment’ (p < 0.10) for:
Suicidal ideation (QIDS-C item 12a) NSD
Medication adherence (MCQa) NSD
Mental Health Care Service Use – including hospitalisation (THxIa) NSD
Days using drugs (excl. alcohol; TLFBa) NSD
Satisfaction (CSQ-8): Treatment significantly higher (29.67; s.d. = 2.45 v. 25.17; s.d. = 4.61, p = 0.02) T
Expectancies for Improvement (CES)
High across both groups. ‘Marginally higher’ for treatment Baseline M = 40.07 (s.d. = 8.96) v. control M = 34.13(s.d. = 8.85) (out of a possible total of 54); t(27) =  −1.80, p = 0.08). 6m M = 29.67(s.d. = 2.45) v. control M = 5.17(s.d. = 4.61) (out of a possible total of 32); t(19) =  −2.65, p = 0.02
T
Castle et al. (2010)
RCT
BP Phone (n = 32) v. control (n = 40)
Weekly (? min) follow-up phone checks× 12 weeks

Weekly 90 min group× 12
+
Monthly 90 min booster group×3

Weekly (? min) supportive phone calls×12 weeks
Survivor function for first relapse (of any type, meeting DSM-IV-TR criteria): Lower rates of relapse for treatment (hazard ratio = 0.43, 95% CI 0.20–0.95; p = 0.04). T Depression (MADRS)
No significant change within or between groups (p = 0.8)
NSD 17 7 Low
No relapse v.  at least one relapse (DSM-IV-TR criteria): No relapse (23 treatment v. 18 control) v.one or more relapse (nine treatment v. 22 control) p = 0.03. T Mania (YMRS)
No significant change within or between groups (p = 0.3)
NSD
Fraction of time spent unwell (during the 9-month follow-up): Significantly less time unwell for treatment (p = 0.02) T
Beebe (2001)

Pilot Randomised
Post-test Control Group
SZ

Phone (n = 15) v. control (n = 22)
Weekly intervention (~10 min)×3 months

2 × assessment
(1–3 min) at
6 and 12 months
Community survival (number of days until first psychiatric rehospitalisation or study end)
Phone M = 81.4 v. control 78.3 (p = 0.70)
NSD No Secondary Outcome(s) Specified 14 3 High
Length of rehospitalisation/s (days):
Phone M = 19.0 v. Control 26.1 (p = 0.51)
NSD
Frequency of rehospitalisation:
Phone 13% v. control 23% readmitted (p = 0.52)
NSD
Telephone vs. treatment as usual
Simon et al (2002,
2005, 2006)
RCT

BP Phone (n = 212) v. Control (n = 229)
Monthly (? Duration) over 24 months

1× individual assessment/care planning
Up to 48 group sessions (5× weekly, then twice-monthly)
Outreach visits ‘as needed’
Mania severity (PSR): Lower in treatment group throughout the 2-year follow-up (p < 0.04). If symptomatic at baseline treatment had a significant effect on mean mania scores (z = 2.27, p < 0.02). T Mania duration (weeks PSR scores >3)
Significantly lower for treatment (M = 19.2, s.d. = 20.2) v. control (M = 24.7, s.d. = 24.3), p = 0.01.
T 25 8 Low
Depression severity (PSR)
No significant difference between the two groups (z = 0.19, p = 0.85)
NSD Depression duration (weeks PSR scores >3)
No significant treatment effect on time (47.6 v. 50.7 weeks; F1 = 0.56, p = 0.45).
NSD
Outpatient Mental Health, Appts (Computerised Registration Data) NSD
Medication Management (p = 0.5) –—
Individual Psychotherapy (p = 0.45)
Psychiatric Hospitalisation (N) p = 0.91 NSD
Medication Use NSD
Mood Stabiliser: p = 0.59 –-
Antidepressant: p = 0.85
Antypical Antipsychotic: p = 0.23
Cost NSD
Outpatient mental health visit: p = 0.53
Psychiatric hospitalisation: Treatment p = 0.34
Psychotropic drug prescription p = 0.08
Total Cost
Intervention M = $8046 (s.d. = 5974) v. control M = $6743(6695), p = 0.06
Process Variable:
Attendance: ?
203 (95.8%) completed >1 telephone & 180 (84.9%) completed >12 telephone contacts.
137 (64.6%) attended > 1 group session, 125 (59.0%) completed 5 weekly sessions & 108 (50.9%) continued for >12 months
Javadpour et al. (2013)
RCT
BP Phone (n = 54) v. control (n = 54)
18× monthly (~10 min) follow-up care for 18 months

8×weekly (~50 min) individual sessions
Number of hospital admissions (hospital file audit): M = 0.22 treatment v. M = 1.41 control hospitalised due to bipolar disorder, p = 0.000.b T No secondary outcomes specified 16 6 High
Depression severity (HDRS): Lower for treatment (baseline M = 4.2; 6m M = 6.3; 12m M = 6.0; 18m M = 5.8) v. control (baseline M = 5.2; 6m M = 10.2; 12m M = 11.2; 18m M = 11.2), p = 0.000b T Process Variable:
Mania (BRMAS): Lower for treatment (baseline M = 4.2; 6m M = 4.6; 12m M = 4.9; 18m M = 4.1) v. control (baseline M = 4.3; 6m M = 8.8; 12m M = 10.0; 18m M = 7.3), p = 0.000.b T Attendance:
Mean number of face-to-face sessions attended was 7.3 & 15.3 of the telephone follow-up programme
?
Depression or mania recurrence (HDRS >7 or BRMAS >9): Fewer recurrences for treatment (M = 0.77) v. control (M = 2.02) p = 0.000)b T
Medication adherence (MARS): Higher for treatment (6m M = 7.9; 12m M = 7.8; 18m M = 7.9) v. control (6m M = 4.7; 12m M = 4.0; 18m M = 3.7), p = 0.008.b T
Quality of life (WHOQOL-BREF) All subscales higher for treatment v. control (all p = 0.000).b
Physical health M = 63.8 v. M = 53.3;
Mental Health M = 66.7 v. M = 54.3;
Social Health M = 74.1 v. M = 51.7;
Environment M = 65.1 v. M 48.9
T
Price (2007)

Pilot RCT
SZ/ SZ-A

Phone (n = 7)
v. control (n = 6)

1–2 calls within 2 wk of discharge
+190 phone minutes to use over three months

1× structured interview 2–3 days before discharge

Structured Interview 2–3 days before discharge
Number of hospital readmission days (through hospital records): Treatment M = 4.0 (range 0–19) v. 10.33 (range 0–28) control (p = 0.2389) NSD No secondary outcomes specified 13 6 High
Compliance with outpatient appointments (reported by case managers): Treatment kept appointments 5/7 times (71.4%) v. 3/6 (50%) controls, (p = 0.4126) NSD Process Variable:
Attendance:
Two participants used all 190 pre-paid mobile minutes in the first week after discharge, so that 30-min increments were then added (amount unspecified)

?



Compliance with medications (reported by case managers and participants): 4/7 (57%) intervention v. 2/6 (33.3%) control (p = 0.3834) NSD
Haddock et al. (2017)
Partially randomised patient preference
trial
SZ Spectrum (incl. BP)
Phone (TS)
(n = 35)
Group + Phone (HS)
(n = 33)
Control
(n = 33)

TS:
Weekly (60 min)×9 months




HS:
As per TS

TS:
Up to 2 × individual (initial session & final session ‘if desired’)
HS:
As per TS + up to 12 bi-weekly, 2-hour group sessions delivered over 6 months



Trial Ax's
(Baseline, 9 & 15 months)
Ratings on strengths of choices: No significant differences in strength of preference between groups, with strong preferences reported (>8/10). NSD Symptoms:
No within or between group differences for
positive and negative symptom severity (PANSS)c


NSD
16



High

Process of Recovery (QPR)
No overall treatment effect at 9 (p = 0.58) or 15 months (p = 0.82)
NSD Distress in relation to positive symptoms (PSYRATS)c
Personal and social functioning (PSP)c
NSD

NSD





Recovery from Psychosis (SEPS) Negative Impacts Subscale
15-month follow-up, significant difference in adjusted means in favour of the control group (16.85 units; 95% CI 1.36–32.35, p = 0.03)
C Depression (CDS)c
Anxiety (BAI)c
Therapeutic alliance (WAI).
Comparable to prior trials of face-to-face CBT for psychosis. Strength of preference for chosen treatment arm significantly associated with higher client rated therapeutic alliance [r (22) = 0.49, p = 0.021]
NSD
NSD
NSD






Process Variable
Attendance: Telephone sessions: TS: 15.8 (s.d. 10.8); HS: 9.8 (s.d. 9.5); Group sessions: 3.0 (s.d. 3.6). Total telephone DNAs: TS: 4.4 (s.d. 5.0); HS: 4.5 (s.d. 4.9). Duration (mins) TS: 40.6 (s.d. 9.2); HS 39.6 (s.d. 1.3).

TS completed significantly more telephone sessions (p < 0.05).
?
Satisfaction: Preferred treatment associated with satisfaction. (Dis)satisfaction with current treatment also informed treatment preference ?
Medication adherence
Telephone v. active comparison condition
No studies
Telephone v. treatment as usual
Montes et al. (2010)
RCT
SZ Phone (n = 456) v. control (n = 472)
3×monthly (? min)

Psychiatrist visit (as indicated)

1×psychiatrist visit at 4 months
Clinician rated adherence to antipsychotic medication (RAT): 96.7% treatment v. 91.2% control, p = 0.0007.
(Increase in % adherence: 8.5% treatment v. 1.1% control).
T Illness severity (CGI-SCH-SI):
Positive Symptoms:
Treatment (M = 2.4, 95% CI = 2.28–2.44) superior to control (M = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.40-2.55), p = 0.02b
Negative Symptoms
T



NSD
22




7




Low




Treatment significantly more likely to be adherent than control (adjusted OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.6–6, p = 0.0001) Depressive Symptoms
Cognitive Symptoms
Global Symptoms:
NSD
NSD
NSD




––
Greater % of non-adherent patients becoming adherent in treatment (10.4%, p = 0.0013) v. control (5.2%, p = 0.43) Clinical improvement (CGI-SCH-DC):
Positive Symptoms
Treatment (M = 3.0) superior to control (M = 3.2), p = 0.0088b

T



Significantly higher percentage of treatment (25.7%, n = 109) improved adherence at the end of the study vs. control (16.8%, n = 74), p = 0.0013 Depressive Symptoms
Treatment (M = 3.0) superior to control (M = 3.2), p = 0.01b
Cognitive Symptoms
T


T









Hospitalisations (RAT):
eight treatment (1.8%) v. 5 control (1.1%), nsc
NSD Treatment (M = 3.2) superior to control (M = 3.4), p = 0.02b
Global Symptoms


T






Treatment (M = 3.1) superior to control M = 3.3), p = 0.0099b
Attitudes to medication (DAI-10):
Treatment (M = 6.1, 95% CI = 5.75–6.35) superior to control (M = 5.2, 95% CI = 4.91–5.48), p < 0.0001b
T
Quality of Life (EQ-5D):
0.80 treatment v. 0.78 control, (p = 0.07).
NSD
Process Variable:
Attendance: 865 attended at least one follow-up phone call. Of 34 patients classified as non-adherent during at least one telephone call, 20 kept their psychiatrist appointment ?
Beebe et al. (2016)
RCT
SZ/SZ-A Phone (n =?)
v. control (n  =?)

(Total N = 140)

Weekly (? min) over 3 months
Self-reported medication adherence (MARS): nsc. NSD No secondary outcomes specified 13 2 High
Medication adherence self-efficacy (MASES): nsc. NSD
Symptom level (PANSS): nsc NSD
Salzer et al. (2004)

RCT


SZ Spectrum Phone (n = 13) v. control (n = 10)
Weekly (<10 min/session) over 52 weeks
‘Treatment effect sizes in the direction of telephone’ for:
Distress from side-effects ES = 0.85 (p = 0.06)
Number of extreme side effects
ES = 0.85 (p = 0.04)
Insight
ES = 0.64 (p = 0.14);

T
T

NSD
No secondary outcomes specified


Process Variable

Attendance: 15/18 intervention (84%) >1 session, 14/15 at least 35/52 scheduled weeks. M = 2.01 calls needed to make one contact. Average contact length: 8.54 minutes (range 5.31–12.17). Average total phone time: 4 h 32 min (range 35 min– 8 h 19 min)




?
9


2


High


Attitudes toward medication
ES = 0.58 (p = 0.11)
NSD
Number of side-effects ES = 0.60 (p = 0.16); NSD
Symptoms and functioning ES = 0.26 (p = 0.54); NSD
Staff relationships
ES = 0.64 (p = 0.12);
NSD
Treatment satisfaction ES = 0.50 (p = 0.24). NSD
No significant differences for:
Subjective response to medication
ES = 0.01, p = 0.96
NSD
Self-reported treatment adherence:
ES = .02, p = 0.87
NSD
Cook et al. (2008)

Non-randomised controlled trial,
pre-post.
Range of diagnoses (including BP and
SZ-A)
Phone (n = 51) v. control (n = 151).
1 x initial screening (? min)

‘Low-risk’  =  toll free number + 1× follow-up at 6 months

‘At-risk’  = mean 3.5 (~11 min) completed calls over an average of 4.4 months
Emergency Department (ED) utilisation (healthcare plan administrative data).
M = 1.11 treatment v. M = 5.03 control; p<.001; ES 0.28b
T Pharmacy-based adherence (< = 14-day gap between prescription fill dates).
6m adherence: 48% treatment v. 26% control, p = 0.004, ES = 0.20.
T 19 High
Exploratory PostHoc:
Treatment group: 1.5 times pre-intervention v. 0.39 times during the intervention (p < 0.001).
Self-reported adherence (Adherent =>80% doses in last 7 days): 6m adherence = 50% treatment ‘which was higher than the comparison rate’ (not specified) p = 0.002, ES = 0.22). T
Process Variable:
Attendance: Nurses made a mean of 2.1 attempts per completed call. Participants at risk for non-adherence (90%): An average of 7.2 call attempts; 3.5 calls over 4.4 months; 11 min/call; 38 min’ total contact/participant ?

smoking/healthy lifestyles
Telephone v. active comparison condition
Baker et al. (2015)
RCTd
SZ Spectrum (Incl. BP) Phone (n = 113) v. HL (n = 112)
7× weekly, 3× f/nightly,
6×monthly (~10 min/session) over 24 weeks
1× initial (90 min)
Weeks 4
and 8 (30 min each)
1× initial (90 min)
7× weekly, 3× f/nightly,
6×monthly (~60 min/session) over 24 weeks
10-year CVD risk (ASSIGN score): Psychiatric symptomatology (BPRS) 22 7 Low
15w: Improvement in both groups.
No significant between group difference (p = 0.420)
NSD 15w: Stable in both groups. No significant between group difference (p = 0.632) NSD
12m: Improvement only in telephone: Phone M = −1.6, 99% CI = −3.2 to −0.0; p = 0.009; HL = −0.7, 99% CI = −2.4,1.0, p = 0.276). No significant between group difference (p = 0.789) ?T 12m: Improvement only in telephone: Phone =  −4.6, 99% CI =  −8.8, −0.4; p = 0.005; HL = −0.5, 99% CI = −4.5, 3.5, p = 0.758).
No significant between group difference (p = 0.032)
?T
Smoking 7-day point prevalence (biochemically validated by a CO reading ⩽ 10 ppm): Psychiatric symptomatology (BDI-II)
15w: Stable in both groups. No significant between group difference (p = 0.915)

NSD



15w: improvement in both groups.
No significant between group difference (p = 0.233)
NSD 12m: Improvement only in HL: Phone  = −3.8, 99% CI = −8.1, 0.4; p = 0.018; HL =  −3.6, 99% CI =  −6.8, −0.3, p = 0.005). No significant
between group differences (p = 0.940)
C?
12m: Improvement only in telephone (expired CO): Phone M = −7.9 (99% CI = −13.6, −2.1), p<.001 v. HL M = −4.9 (99% CI = −10.7 to 0.8), p = 0.026.
No significant between group difference (p = 0.864)
?T Global functioning (GAF):
Improvement in both groups 15w & 12m. No significant between group differences at either time point

NSD



Smoking reduction status (at least 50% relative to baseline):
Significant reduction in both conditions at 15w and 12m. No significant between group difference at either time point (p’s>0.099).
NSD Weight and its impact on quality of life: (IWOQOL-Lite):
Stable in both groups at 15w and 12m. No significant between group difference at either time point (p’s>0.556)
NSD
Cigarettes per day: Significant reduction in both conditions at 15w and 12m. No significant between group difference at either time point (p’s>0.565). NSD Quality of Life (SF-12):
Stable in both groups at 15w and 12m. No significant between group difference at either time point (p’s >0.042).
NSD
Health Behaviours & Biomedical Measures
Stable in both groups at 15w and 12m.
No significant between group differences
NSD
Treatment retention: Significant overall difference between phone (mean 12.4, s.d. 5.2) & HL (mean 9.2, s.d. 6.0). 67% (76/113) of phone had high levels of attendance (9–17 sessions) v. 48% (58/122) of HL condition (p < 0.001). T
Smoking cessation for those attending more (9–17) v. fewer (1–8) sessions: 7-day point prevalence abstinence 15w 16.0% more session v. 4.0% fewer session (p = 0.006) 12m (p = 0.199) ?T
Reduction of 50% or greater CPD
15w: 51% more session v. 16% fewer session (p < 0.001) 12m: 25% more session v. 6.9% fewer session (p < 0.001)
?T
Kilbourne et al. (2012)
Pilot
RCT
BP Phone (n = 34) v. Control (n = 34) Monthly (20 min/session) delivered across the remaining 5 months of the intervention period 4× weekly group sessions (2 h/session) Cardiometabolic risk (BMI & Blood Pressure)
Stable in both groups. No between group differences (all p’s >0.58)
Health related QoL (SF-12): Mental and Physical Component Subscales
Stable in both groups. No between group differences (all p’s >0.38)
NSD


NSD
Post-hoc exploratory analyses for participants with elevated cardiometabolic risk (BMI⩾30 or systolic BP>140):
Greater improvement in intervention for functioning and depressive symptoms (p = 0.04 for both) Not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons
T 21 7 High
Functioning (WHODAS):
‘trend in favour of intervention’: ES 0.20 (p = 0.11).
?T 12 Month Service Utilisation
No significant differences between groups.
Process Variable:
NSD
Symptoms (Internal State Scale): Attendance: 79% of intervention participants completed at least three self-management sessions (i.e. >80% of session topics). The mean number of monthly follow-up contacts by phone or in-person was 4.5 (s.d. 1.5) ?
Depressive: ‘trend in favour of intervention’: ES 0.23 (p = 0.15)
Manic: Stable in both groups. No significant differences between groups (p = 0.68)
?T
NSD
Heffner et al. (2015)
Pilot
Two sequential single arm studies:e

BP Phone (n = 6) v.
In-person (n = 10)
10× 30 min sessions delivered weekly 10× 30 min sessions delivered weekly Acceptance (AIS):
Comparable change:
55% phone v. 54% in-person average increase from baseline
Depression (MADRS in person; PHQ-9 phone).
‘No clinically significant change in either group’
Mean change for phone of −1.2 (s.d. = 9.9) v. −1.3 (s.d. 4.0) in-person.
13 High
7-day point prevalence abstinence (TLFB):
End of treatment: 33% phone v. 40% in-person
1 m:17% phone v. 30% in-person
Mania (YMRS in person; ASRM phone):
‘No clinically significant change in either group’
Mean change for phone of 0.8 (s.d. 4.3) v. −0.1 (s.d. 1.1) in-person
4-week prolonged abstinence (TLFB):
End of treatment: 30% in-person v. 17% phone;
1m: 17% phone v.10% in-person
Cigarettes/day: (50% or greater reduction between baseline and end of treatment) 67% phone v. 50% in-person


Adherence Mean attendance was 8.3/10 sessions (s.d. 2.2) in-person; 6.7 (s.d. 2.9) for telephone. The proportion of treatment completers who used at least 80% of the NRT was 62.5% for in-person & 0% for phone. Average NRT adherence was 72.8% (s.d. 32.0) for in-person & 40.2% (s.d. 18.7) for phone condition.
Notes: CO verification in the in-person condition.
Missing = smoking imputation for all cessation outcomes and return to baseline smoking for the reduction outcomes.
Treatment satisfaction 100% phone and 90% in-person participants found the intervention helpful and would recommend the treatment.
Adverse events: four psychiatric events (no suicide attempts) for phone v. four psychiatric (including one suicide attempt) in-person
Telephone v. Treatment as Usual
No studies

Note:

a

Cohens ƒ2 not reported.

b

s.d. not reported.

c

p value not reported.

d

Findings presented as mean change unless otherwise specified.

e

Within subjects analysis only.

f

Any face-to-face elements that are specified in addition to routine care.

ƒ2, Cohen's Effect Size; AIS, Acceptance of Illness Scale; Ax's, Assessments; BAI, Beck Anxiety Inventory; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; BP, Bipolar; BPRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; BRMAS, Bech–Rafaelsen Mania Scale; CARS-M, Clinician Administered Rating Scale for Mania; CDS, Carroll Depression Scale; CES, Credibility and Expectancy Scale; CGI-SCH, Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia (-DC, degree of change; -SI, Severity of illness); CPD, Cigarettes per day; ns, non-significant; CSQ-8, Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire; DAI-10, Drug attitude inventory; EQ-5D, EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire; ES, effect size; FTND, Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; HDRS, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; IWOQOL-Lite, Impact of Weight on Quality of Life; M, Mean; MADRS, Montgomery Asberg Rating Scale; MARS, Medication Adherence Report Scale; MASES, Medication Adherence Self-Efficacy Scale; MCQ, Medication Compliance Questionnaire; NSD, No significant difference; OTI, Opiate Treatment Index; PANSS, Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale; PHQ-9, Patient health questionnaire; PSP, Personal and Social Performance Scale; PSR, Psychiatric Status Rating; PSYRATS, Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scales; QPR, Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery; RAT, Register of Adherence to Treatment; s.d., Standard Deviation; SEPS, Subjective Experience of Psychotic Symptoms; SERS, Self Esteem Rating Scale; SF-12, Short Form Health Survey; SZ, Schizophrenia; SZ-A, Schizoaffective; THxI, Treatment History Interview; TLFB, Timeline Follow Back; VLQ, Valued Living Questionnaire; WAI, Working Alliance Inventory; WHODAS, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule; WHOQOL-BREF, WHO Quality of Life Brief Scale; YMRS, Young Mania Rating Scale.

Table 2.

Key outcomes for studies without a comparison condition (structured in descending order according to quality rating)

Author
study design
Clinical group N Intervention delivery methods Primary outcome Summary of effect Secondary outcome/ process variable Summary of effect Quality rating
Telephone Face to face Downs and black Overall risk of bias
Relapse prevention
Miklowitz et al. (2012)
Two sequential single arm studies
BP 19
5–6× weekly;
bi-weekly and then monthly (30 min) for the 4–5-month duration of the intervention
 + 
Daily texts and emails
Depression (QIDS-SR): Baseline previous 4 week mean 7.4 (s.d. 5.6). Reduction of −0.11 points per week over time

Mania (ASRM): Baseline previous 4-week median score was 1. Average increase of 0.08 points per week over time

Changes in self-reported knowledge of mood management strategies (BMMQ): Significant increase in total knowledge score, mean of 54.2 (s.d. 8.8) at week 1–66.9 (s.d. 9.5), p < 0.001

Treatment retention: 19 agreed, 17 completed all sessions in the required time frame (mean ± s.d.: Pilot I: 9.2 ± 3.4, range: 5–17 weeks and Pilot II: 7.6 ± 0.9, range: 7–9 weeks). 94.7% follow-up rate

Facilitators’ fidelity to the manual (TCAS): 78.2% of rated sessions met the threshold for ‘good’ fidelity (>5)
?
(Data did not meet normality assumptions)


?
(Data did not meet normality assumptions)


Improvement







Feasible







Good fidelity
No secondary outcomes specified










Process Variable:

Attendance: Mean time to complete program of 9.2 weeks (s.d. 3.4; range 5–17) for Pilot I & 7.6 weeks (s.d. 0.9; range 7–9) for Pilot II. Participants responded to an average of 81% of the daily text or email prompts during treatment. Number of telephone sessions delivered was not reported
















?















16



























High



























Medication adherence
McKenzie & Chang (2015)
Single group pre-post
BP 14
2× (20–30 min) delivered weekly

1× initial (45–60 min) session
Self-reported adherence

MARS: Improved adherence: mean 4.3 (s.d. 2.6) to 2.2 (s.d. 1.6) (p < 0.01)

Total rate of adherence (TLFB): 67.8–94.3% (p < 0.01)


Improvement



Improvement
Motivation to change (10-point Likert scales): Significant improvement on importance, motivation and confidence regarding medication adherence
Pre-test M = 24.7 (s.d. 5.4) to mid-test M = 27.1 (s.d. 2.7) (p = 0.025);
Mid-test to post-test M = 28.7 (s.d. 1.7) (p = .001);
Pre- to post-test (p = 0.004)

Self-efficacy (SEAMS): Significant improvement, Pre-test M = 26.8 (s.d. 5.9) to mid-test M = 29.6 (s.d. 3.6) (p = 0.026),
Mid-test to post-test M = 33.4 (s.d. 3.5) (p = 0.000)
Pre- to post-test (p = 0.001)

Treatment satisfaction (5 × 5-point Likert scales). Mean scores for each question ranged from 4.6 to 5 on the five-point scale plus positive qualitative data from two participants

Process variable:

Attendance: Of the 14 participants, there were two occasions where participants had to reschedule their phone sessions
Improvement












Improvement








Satisfied






?
15





















High





















Boardman et al. (2014)
Single group pre-post-follow-up
SZ 22
Weekly (~20 min/session) ×8 weeks
Self-reported adherence (missed medication doses previous 4 weeks): Baseline 7.8 (s.d. 5.5, range 5–30), 8-week 1.3 (s.d. 1.4, range 0–4), 14-week 1.2 (s.d. 2.5, range 0–11), p = 0.0001 Improvement Psychiatric symptoms (BPRS). Baseline mean (s.d.) 36 (8.8), 8-week 32 (s.d. 7.7), 14-week 32.2 (6.8), p = 0.003



Process variable:

Attendance: 22/28 (78.6%) described as completing the intervention
Improvement








?
11 High
Smoking/healthy lifestyles
Baker et al. (2014)
Single group pre-post
SZ Spectrum (including BP) 17
1× (~60 min) + 7× (~26 min) delivered once to twice weekly
Fruit intake (ARFS): Sig. increase from 5.1 (s.d. = 3.1) to 6.6 (s.d. = 2.9), ES −0.73

Vegetable intake (ARFS): Trend for improvement 12.2 (s.d. = 4) to 13.5 (s.d. = 3.5), ES −0.64

Leisure screen time (weekday time watching television and/or using a computer at home): Sig. reduction from 298 (s.d. = 200) to 163 (s.d. = 107) min/day, ES 0.76
Improvement



?
Improvement



Improvement
Depression (BDI-FS): 4.5 (s.d. = 3.3) to 3.7 (s.d. = 2.8), ES 0.37, ns


Diet quality (ARFS): Sig. increase, 33.2 (s.d. = 10.5) to 38.2 (s.d. = 8.1), ES −0.97


Total servings of fruit and vegetables/day: Increased 4.2 (s.d. = 2.0) to 5.0 (s.d. = 1.8), ES −0.4, ns


Time spent walking (IPAQ): 252 (s.d. = 353) to 356 (s.d. = 470) min/day, ES −0.42, ns

Overall sitting time: Sig. decrease 555 (s.d. = 191) to 412 (s.d. = 211) min/day, ES 0.73

Smoking: Of five smokers, two reported abstinence at post-treatment. A third reported a 50% reduction in cigarettes per day (ES 1.03 for CPD)

Alcohol consumption (2-week TLFB): 1 hazardous drinker at baseline, alcohol use not targeted

Cannabis (OTI): three users at baseline, two abstinent post-treatment, one reduced use by 67% (ES 1.02)

Quality of life (WHO-8 EUROHIS): 25.6 (s.d. = 5.6) to 28.4 (s.d. = 6.6), ES −0.65, ns

Functioning (GAF): Significant improvement 57.1 (s.d. = 6.7) to 62.7 (s.d. = 8.9), ES-0.65

Satisfaction: All participants rated the quality of the service as ‘good’ (17.6%) or ‘excellent’ (82.4%). The majority indicated they were ‘mostly’ (17.6%) or ‘very’ satisfied (76.5%) with one person (5.9%) ‘indifferent or mildly dissatisfied’

Process Variable:
Attendance: 19 (95%) completed all eight intervention sessions, with one person withdrawing due to lack of privacy in their boarding house
NSD



Improvement




?
Improvement




?
Improvement


Improvement



?
Improvement




?




?
Improvement



NSD



Improvement



Satisfied








?
14























































High














––








































ASRM, Altman Self-Rating Mania Scale; ARFS, Australian Recommended Food Score; BDI-FS, Beck Depression Inventory Fast Screen; BMMQ, Bipolar Mood Management Questionnaire; BP, bipolar; BPRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; CPD, cigarettes per day; ES, effect size; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire; M, Mean; MARS, Medication Adherence Report Scale; NSD, no significant difference ; OTI, Opiate Treatment Index; QIDS, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (-C, clinician rated; -SR, self-rated); s.d., standard deviation; SEAMS, Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale; SZ, schizophrenia; TCAS, Therapist Competence/Adherence Scale; TLFB, Timeline Follow Back; WHO-8 EUROHIS, Shortened version of the World Health Organisation Quality of Life Instrument-Abbreviated Version.

Outcomes assessed

Outcome measures utilised in each study are reported in Tables 1 and 2. There was considerable heterogeneity. In studies of relapse prevention, the primary outcome was typically relapse, which was variously defined according to number of days until psychiatric hospitalisation, number of days until DSM criteria (IV or IV-TR) were met for a mood episode [(hypo)mania, depression, mixed)] and/or severity of symptoms. All 10 studies included one or more measures of psychiatric symptomatology, but only three included measures of quality of life and/or functioning (Castle et al., 2007; Javadpour et al., 2013; Wenze et al., 2015) and only one utilised an index of personally meaningful recovery as a primary outcome (Haddock et al., 2017). In studies of medication adherence, the primary outcome was typically medication compliance, as per self-report or clinician administered assessment. Studies typically included one or more measures to assess the impact on symptoms, service utilisation and attitudes (including self-efficacy and insight), but only two assessed the impact on quality of life and/or functioning (Salzer et al., 2004; Montes et al., 2010). In studies of CVD/health risk behaviours, primary outcomes typically included an index of smoking (Baker et al., 2015; Heffner et al., 2015) or CVD risk (Kilbourne et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2015). One study (Baker et al., 2014) focused on sedentary activity and intake of fruit and vegetables. Functioning and/or quality of life were assessed in three of the four studies (Kilbourne et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2015).

Methodological quality and risk of bias in included studies

Studies are presented in descending order of methodological quality in Table 1 for controlled trials and Table 2 for single-arm studies. No clear pattern emerged between methodological rigour and whether or not the outcomes were in favour of the telephone condition. Across all trials, there was considerable variation in methodological quality scores on the Downs and Black scale, (total scores ranged from 9 to 25 out of 27). At least half of included studies scored 0 for the following items: adverse events; characteristics of those lost to follow-up; representativeness of the sample; attempts to have blinded outcomes assessors and adequate power (six studies reported power calculations, one had sufficient power). For the 12 RCTs Pedro scores ranged from two to eight out of eight. At least half of included studies scored 0 for ‘blinding of outcomes assessors’, and ‘measures of at least one key outcome variable from at least 85% of original participants’.

Cochrane risk of bias assessments is presented in online Supplementary Fig. S1a and S1b, with overall risk of bias scores in Tables 1 and 2. To summarise, eight studies reported adequate random sequence generation, four reported allocation concealment procedures, four stated that assessors were blinded to intervention status, nine were unlikely to be subjected to attrition bias, and 11 may have been affected by reporting bias. Regarding the overall risk of bias, all non-RCTs were automatically rated as ‘high’ for overall risk of bias. Eight RCTs were rated as having a high overall risk of bias (Beebe, 2001; Salzer et al., 2004; Castle et al., 2007; Price, 2007; Kilbourne et al., 2012; Javadpour et al., 2013; Wenze et al., 2015; Beebe et al., 2016), with all rated as unclear regarding one or both of two key items (sequence generation and allocation concealment). The remaining five RCTs were rated as having a low overall risk of bias, although only two (Simon et al., 2006; Baker et al., 2015) had adequately blinded outcomes assessors and a pre-published protocol.

Synthesis of results

Results of individual studies are presented in Table 1 (controlled trials) and 2 (single arm studies). Heterogeneity of form of intervention delivery (telephone only or in combination), control group (active or inactive control) and outcome measures precluded a meta-analysis on (within outcomes or collapsed across groups). A narrative synthesis is presented below.

Effects of Interventions

Relapse prevention

Of the 10 trials assessing relapse prevention, there were eight RCTs (Beebe, 2001; Simon et al., 2006; Castle et al., 2007; Price, 2007; Castle et al., 2010; Javadpour et al., 2013; Komatsu et al., 2013; Wenze et al., 2015), one partially randomised preference trial (Haddock et al., 2017) and one open trial (Miklowitz et al., 2012). Numbers in the RCT component of the preference trial were low (only three participants chose to be randomised), therefore this study has been categorised as an observational for the purpose of this review. Five RCTs reported at least 50% of outcomes significantly in favour of the telephone intervention, over time periods of up to 18 months (Javadpour et al., 2013); four relative to an active comparison condition (Castle et al., 2007; Castle et al., 2010; Komatsu et al., 2013; Wenze et al., 2015) and one relative to TAU (Javadpour et al., 2013). For the remaining RCTs, Beebe and colleagues (the only study in which the telephone was the sole delivery method) did not detect significant differences between active treatment conditions on the three indicators of relapse used (Beebe, 2001); Simon and colleagues demonstrated significant effects in favour of the telephone condition in two of the eight outcomes, but otherwise equivalent performance to TAU (Simon et al., 2002; 2005, ) while Price found that the difference seen in hospital admissions and treatment compliance for the telephone condition (relative to TAU) did not reach statistical significance (Price, 2007). For the two non-RCTs, Haddock et al., did not detect significant differences between active treatment conditions and/or TAU for eight of the nine outcomes assessed, with the remaining outcome (Recovery from Negative Impacts of Psychosis) in favour of TAU [although the authors urge caution when interpreting this finding due to multiple comparisons (Haddock et al., 2017)] and Miklowitz et al. found significant improvement in knowledge of mood management strategies, but was unable to calculate the statistical significance of observed improvements in mania and depression (Miklowitz et al., 2012).

As seen in Table 1, seven RCTs reported readmission or rehospitalisation data [all except (Castle et al., 2010)], with six in favour of the telephone intervention and three attaining statistical significance (Castle et al., 2007; Javadpour et al., 2013; Komatsu et al., 2013). Six RCTs reported symptom outcomes (Simon et al., 2002; Simon et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2006; Castle et al., 2007; Castle et al., 2010; Javadpour et al., 2013; Komatsu et al., 2013; Wenze et al., 2015), five demonstrated significant advantages of the telephone intervention on at least one symptom (Simon et al., 2002; Simon et al., 2005; Simon et al., 2006; Castle et al., 2010; Javadpour et al., 2013; Komatsu et al., 2013; Wenze et al., 2015).

Medication adherence

Of the six trials reporting on medication adherence as the primary outcome three were RCTs (Salzer et al., 2004; Montes et al., 2010; Beebe et al., 2016), one non-randomised (Cook et al., 2008) and two single-group pre-post designs (Boardman et al., 2014; McKenzie and Chang, 2015). For the RCTs, the larger study (Montes et al., 2010) was the only to report at least 50% of outcomes in favour of the telephone condition. Although Salzer (Salzer et al., 2004) demonstrated effect sizes in the direction of the telephone for eight of the ten outcomes evaluated (using an intervention delivered entirely over the telephone). However, the two medication adherence outcomes (subjective response to medication and self-reported treatment adherence) did not significantly differ between groups (Salzer et al., 2004). Similarly, in their entirely telephone-delivered intervention Beebe (Beebe et al., 2016) did not detect a between-group difference for medication adherence. Conversely, in their non-randomised trial of an intervention delivered entirely by telephone, Cook reported improved adherence (both pharmacy based and self-report measures) in favour of the telephone condition (Cook et al., 2008). Both open trials reported improved self-reported medication adherence post-treatment (Boardman et al., 2014; McKenzie and Chang, 2015).

Smoking or CVD risk behaviours

There were four studies reporting smoking or CVD risk behaviour outcomes (Kilbourne et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2014; Baker et al., 2015; Heffner et al., 2015), with two RCTs (Kilbourne et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2015) – one of those a pilot trial (Kilbourne et al., 2012). Both RCTs utilised an active comparison condition and neither demonstrated at least 50% of outcomes in favour of the telephone condition. Baker et al. (2015), demonstrated significant improvements in CVD risk and smoking at 12 months following either a largely telephone-delivered intervention or a multi-component face-to-face intervention. Significant improvements in global functioning were also seen in both conditions (Baker et al., 2015). Neither condition demonstrated significant improvements in health behaviours other than smoking (Baker et al., 2015). Cardiometabolic risk (BMI and blood pressure) and health-related quality of life also remained stable for both conditions in the pilot RCT by Kilbourne et al. (2012) and between-group differences for functioning and depression symptoms approached significance, in favour of the telephone condition (Kilbourne et al., 2012). Further, for individuals at greater risk (BMI⩾30 or systolic BP>140), post hoc analyses demonstrated superior improvement in functioning and depressive symptoms for the telephone condition (Kilbourne et al., 2012). For the single-arm studies, results from Heffner et al. (2015) suggest largely equivalent performance of the phone and face-to-face delivery for a smoking cessation intervention, although between groups comparisons were not performed. Finally, in a single-group pre-post design Baker et al. (2014) demonstrated clinically important change across a range of health behaviours following an intervention delivered entirely by telephone.

Discussion

This review aimed to capture all relevant studies of interventions delivered on at least 50% of session occasions by telephone to improve relapse prevention, medication adherence or reduce smoking and/or other CVD risk behaviour. We sought to comment on the feasibility and efficacy of telephone-delivered psychosocial interventions in people with a psychotic disorder. A total of 20 trials were reviewed in full, with 13 RCTs. Overall, the literature is split relatively evenly across schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. Studies typically included one or more ‘traditional’ clinical outcomes (e.g. symptomatology, relapse, medication compliance), with considerably fewer assessing the quality of life or functioning. Little is known about the process variables that may influence treatment outcome and only one study conducted economic analysis.

Although the modest body of literature and diversity of methods precludes definitive comments on efficacy, positive effects were found. Five of eight RCTs evaluating relapse prevention and one of three RCTs evaluating medication adherence reported at least 50% of outcomes in favour of the telephone-delivered the intervention, for time periods up to 18 months. As for smoking and other CVD risk behaviour studies, comparable levels of improvement were seen across treatment conditions. Of note, the comparison condition for one of the studies (Baker et al., 2015) was an intensive, multi-component face-to-face delivered intervention with longer session duration. Accordingly, the equivalent level of improvement seen is important and points to the potential efficiency of telephone-delivered interventions for promoting clinically meaningful change.

The results in each domain of relapse prevention, medication adherence and smoking and CVD risk behaviour interventions are encouraging. Although most interventions combined telephone and face-to-face delivery, there were indications that entirely telephone-delivered interventions might be effective (e.g. Baker et al., 2014, Boardman et al., 2014), with evidence of at least equivalent (Beebe, 2001; Beebe et al., 2016) if not superior performance (Salzer et al., 2004; Cook et al., 2008) relative to standard care. In addition, in the relapse prevention preference trial conducted by Haddock et al., (2017), strong preferences were nominated by study participants for either telephone or telephone plus group delivery, with a significantly greater number of telephone sessions attended in the telephone only condition and few group sessions attended, on average. Thus, this review suggests that telephone-delivered interventions may be popular among service users, well attended, and at least as effective, if not superior to treatment as usual. Clearly, further methodologically rigorous research is warranted.

Limitations

Firstly, this review identified a modest sample of heterogeneous studies. Differences in outcome assessment, intervention and comparator conditions precluded meta-analysis. Accordingly, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about the impact of telephone-delivered interventions on the outcomes of interest. There was also considerable variation in methodological quality. Most studies were uncontrolled and less than half of the RCTs identified were deemed to be at low risk of bias. In addition to poor reporting around randomisation and allocation concealment, many studies did not report using blinded outcomes assessors. Adequately powered RCTs were also rare. Many had small sample sizes, and all but one of those reporting power calculations were underpowered to detect significant differences. The cross-cultural generalisability of our findings is also restricted as we limited our search to English language publications.

Implications for practice

Despite psychological interventions being recommended (Galletly et al., 2016; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014a, 2014b) for the treatment of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, of those likely to benefit, only 10% or less have access (Gulliver et al., 2010; Haddock et al., 2014; Schizophrenia Commission, 2015). Our findings lend further support to the potential role of phone delivered interventions in improving access. Importantly, the treatment protocols included in the current review were delivered by a variety of health professionals and ranged from brief time-limited ‘check-in's’ (e.g. Price, 2007) to full psychological interventions (e.g. Baker et al., 2014). Accordingly, telephone delivery may help to overcome barriers related to accessibility of support services and availability of trained clinicians (Gulliver et al., 2010; Haddock et al., 2014; Schizophrenia Commission, 2015), while maintaining the verbal contact and social connectedness of face-to-face delivery. Moreover, contrary to reservations from service providers, especially with regards to severe mental illness [SMI (Perle et al., 2013)], evidence from the current, and other (Kasckow et al., 2014) reviews suggest that telephone interventions are acceptable and well attended by adults with SMI.

Implications for research

To better establish the effectiveness of telephone interventions for people with a psychotic disorder, high quality, adequately powered studies are an important priority. The latter might best be conducted within existing practice settings to better evaluate the real-world impact of telephone-delivered interventions. To better understand the comparative clinical and cost effectiveness of telephone-delivered interventions, more head to head trials are needed. This would also help inform what, if any modifications are needed to ensure that telephone-delivered interventions meet the needs and preferences of service users. With the increasing focus on peer workers in mental health services, future research may also benefit from examining the acceptability and effectiveness of using peer workers to deliver telephone interventions. While it is challenging in studies of psychological interventions to use a double-blind design, the use of blinded outcomes measurement [e.g. a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) design] has been argued to be a sufficient alternative (Hansson et al., 1992). Greater attention to non-symptom indicators of wellbeing (e.g. quality of life and functioning) and process variables (e.g. therapeutic alliance) is also warranted. To allow comparison between studies, greater uniformity in outcome measures would be beneficial. Accordingly, agreement upon and adherence to standard definitions of common outcome variables is an important priority for future research.

Acknowledgements

Professor John Attia (Director, Clinical Research and Statistical Support Unit, the Hunter Medical Research Institute) for advice regarding meta-analyses. Dayle Raftery (School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle) for her contribution to editing, formatting and referencing.

Declaration of interest

Dr Bucci is a Director of Affigo CIC, a social enterprise providing digital health solution for mental health problems. Dr Bucci, Dr Berry and Professor Haddock are current grant holders for a mobile application delivered CBT intervention for early psychosis (Medical Research Council: R116690). Professor Baker is an author on two studies included in this systematic review. Dr. Turner is an author on one included study. A/Professor Kelly is an author on one included study. Professor Haddock and Dr Berry are authors on one included study.

Registration

PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews Registration Number: CRD42015025402 Date: 17 August 2015

Author contribution

AKB conducted the searches and oversaw article selection. ALB cross-checked selected articles and extracted data. AT, KB and SB cross-checked extracted data. ALB and AT conducted quality assessments. ALB, AT, AKB, KB and SB drafted the article. All authors made substantial contributions to the conception and design of this systematic review; interpretation of findings; critically reviewing this document, and provided final approval of the version to be published.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001125.

S0033291718001125sup001.zip (1.8MB, zip)

click here to view supplementary material

References

  1. Alvarez-Jimenez M, Priede A, Hetrick SE, Bendall S, Killackey E, Parker AG, McGorry PD and Gleeson JF (2012) Risk factors for relapse following treatment for first episode psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Schizophrenia Research 139, 116–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker A, Richmond R, Castle D, Kulkarni J, Kay-Lambkin F, Sakrouge R, Filia S and Lewin TJ (2009) Coronary heart disease risk reduction intervention among overweight smokers with a psychotic disorder: pilot trial. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 43, 129–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker AL, Hiles SA, Thornton LK, Hides L and Lubman DI (2012) A systematic review of psychological interventions for excessive alcohol consumption among people with psychotic disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 126, 243–255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker AL, Richmond R, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Filia SL, Castle D, Williams JM, Lewin TJ, Clark V, Callister R and Weaver N (2015) Randomized controlled trial of a healthy lifestyle intervention among smokers with psychotic disorders. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 17, 946–954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker AL, Turner A, Kelly PJ, Spring B, Callister R, Collins CE, Woodcock KL, Kay-Lambkin FJ, Devir H and Lewin TJ (2014) ‘Better health choices’ by telephone: a feasibility trial of improving diet and physical activity in people diagnosed with psychotic disorders. Psychiatry Research 220, 63–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Banham L and Gilbody S (2010) Smoking cessation in severe mental illness: what works? Addiction 105, 1176–1189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barkhof E, Meijer CJ, de Sonneville LM, Linszen DH and de Haan L (2012) Interventions to improve adherence to antipsychotic medication in patients with schizophrenia–a review of the past decade. European Psychiatry 27, 9–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beck AK, Baker A, Turner A, Haddock G, Kelly PJ, Berry K and Bucci S (2015) Protocol for a systematic review of telephone delivered psychosocial interventions on relapse prevention, adherence to psychiatric medication and health risk behaviours in adults with a psychotic disorder. BMJ Open 5, e009985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beebe LH (2001) Community nursing support for clients with schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 15, 214–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Beebe LH, Smith K and Phillips C (2016) Effect of a telephone intervention Upon self-reported medication adherence and self-efficacy in outpatients With schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs). Issues in Mental Health Nursing 37, 708–714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Boardman G, McCann T and Kerr D (2014) A peer support programme for enhancing adherence to oral antipsychotic medication in consumers with schizophrenia. Journal of Advanced Nursing 70, 2293–2302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Brissos S, Dias VV, Balanza-Martinez V, Carita AI and Figueira ML (2011) Symptomatic remission in schizophrenia patients: relationship with social functioning, quality of life, and neurocognitive performance. Schizophrenia Research 129, 133–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brown S, Inskip H and Barraclough B (2000) Causes of the excess mortality of schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry 177, 212–217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bucci S, Berry K, Barrowclough C and Haddock G (2016) Family interventions in psychosis: a review of the evidence and barriers to implementation. Australian Psychologist 51, 62–68. [Google Scholar]
  15. Castle D, Berk M, Berk L, Lauder S, Chamberlain J and Gilbert M (2007) Pilot of group intervention for bipolar disorder. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 11, 279–284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Castle D, White C, Chamberlain J, Berk M, Berk L, Lauder S, Murray G, Schweitzer I, Piterman L and Gilbert M (2010) Group-based psychosocial intervention for bipolar disorder: randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry 196, 383–388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cook PF, Emiliozzi S, Waters C and El Hajj D (2008) Effects of telephone counseling on antipsychotic adherence and emergency department utilization. American Journal of Managed Care 14, 841–846. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Downs SH and Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 52, 377–384. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Firth J, Cotter J, Torous J, Bucci S, Firth JA and Yung AR (2016) Mobile phone ownership and endorsement of “mHealth” among people With psychosis: a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies. Schizophrenia Bulletin 42, 448–455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Galletly C, Castle D, Dark F, Humberstone V, Jablensky A, Killackey E, Kulkarni J, McGorry P, Nielssen O and Tran N (2016) Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the management of schizophrenia and related disorders. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 50, 410–472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Galletly CA, Foley DL, Waterreus A, Watts GF, Castle DJ, McGrath JJ, Mackinnon A and Morgan VA (2012) Cardiometabolic risk factors in people with psychotic disorders: the second Australian national survey of psychosis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 46, 753–761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gay K, Torous J, Joseph A, Pandya A and Duckworth K (2016) Digital technology use among individuals with schizophrenia: results of an online survey. JMIR Mental Health 3, e15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gulliver A, Griffiths KM and Christensen H (2010) Perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health help-seeking in young people: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry 10, 113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Haddock G, Berry K, Davies G, Dunn G, Harris K, Hartley S, Holland F, Kelly J, Law H, Morrison AP, Mulligan J, Neil ST, Pitt L, Rivers Z, Taylor CDJ, Wass R, Welford M, Woodward S and Barrowclough C (2017) Delivery preferences for cognitive-behaviour therapy for psychosis: a preference trial. Journal of Mental Health. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Haddock G, Eisner E, Boone C, Davies G, Coogan C and Barrowclough C (2014) An investigation of the implementation of NICE-recommended CBT interventions for people with schizophrenia. Journal of Mental Health (abingdon, England) 23, 162–165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hansson L, Hedner T and Dahlof B (1992) Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Blood Pressure 1, 113–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Heffner JL, McClure JB, Mull KE, Anthenelli RM and Bricker JB (2015) Acceptance and commitment therapy and nicotine patch for smokers with bipolar disorder: preliminary evaluation of in-person and telephone-delivered treatment. Bipolar Disorders 17, 560–566. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Higgins J and Green S (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.
  29. Jauhar S, McKenna PJ, Radua J, Fung E, Salvador R and Laws KR (2014) Cognitive-behavioural therapy for the symptoms of schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis with examination of potential bias. British Journal of Psychiatry 204, 20–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Javadpour A, Hedayati A, Dehbozorgi GR and Azizi A (2013) The impact of a simple individual psycho-education program on quality of life, rate of relapse and medication adherence in bipolar disorder patients. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 6, 208–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kasckow J, Felmet K, Appelt C, Thompson R, Rotondi A and Haas G (2014) Telepsychiatry in the assessment and treatment of schizophrenia. Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses 8, 21–27A. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kilbourne AM, Goodrich DE, Lai Z, Clogston J, Waxmonsky J and Bauer MS (2012) Life goals collaborative care for patients with bipolar disorder and cardiovascular disease risk. Psychiatric Services 63, 1234–1238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Komatsu H, Sekine Y, Okamura N, Kanahara N, Okita K, Matsubara S, Hirata T, Komiyama T, Watanabe H, Minabe Y and Iyo M (2013) Effectiveness of information technology aided relapse prevention programme in Schizophrenia excluding the effect of user adherence: a randomized controlled trial. Schizophrenia Research 150, 240–244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lacro JP, Dunn LB, Dolder CR, Leckband SG and Jeste DV (2002) Prevalence of and risk factors for medication nonadherence in patients with schizophrenia: a comprehensive review of recent literature. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 63, 892–909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Laursen TM (2011) Life expectancy among persons with schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder. Schizophrenia Research 131, 101–104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Leach LS and Christensen H (2006) A systematic review of telephone-based interventions for mental disorders. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 12, 122–129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis SM, Davis CE, Lebowitz BD, Severe J, Hsiao JK and Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness I (2005) Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. New England Journal of Medicine 353, 1209–1223. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM and Elkins M (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy 83, 713–721. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. McKenzie K and Chang YP (2015) The effect of nurse-led motivational interviewing on medication adherence in patients with bipolar disorder. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care 51, 36–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Miklowitz DJ, Price J, Holmes EA, Rendell J, Bell S, Budge K, Christensen J, Wallace J, Simon J, Armstrong NM, McPeake L, Goodwin GM and Geddes JR (2012) Facilitated integrated mood management for adults with bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders 14, 185–197. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Montes JM, Maurino J, Diez T and Saiz-Ruiz J (2010) Telephone-based nursing strategy to improve adherence to antipsychotic treatment in schizophrenia: a controlled trial. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice 14, 274–281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Morgan VA, Waterreus A, Jablensky A, Mackinnon A, McGrath JJ, Carr V, Bush R, Castle D, Cohen M, Harvey C, Galletly C, Stain HJ, Neil AL, McGorry P, Hocking B, Shah S and Saw S (2012) People living with psychotic illness in 2010: the second Australian national survey of psychosis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 46, 735–752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014a) Bipolar disorder: The assessment and management of bipolar disorder in adults, children and young people in primary and secondary care. NICE guidelines [CG185] https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg185 (Accessed 26 August 2015).
  44. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014b) Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: Treatment and management NICE guidelines [CG178] https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg178 (Accessed 26 August 2015).
  45. Oud M, Mayo-Wilson E, Braidwood R, Schulte P, Jones SH, Morriss R, Kupka R, Cuijpers P and Kendall T (2016) Psychological interventions for adults with bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry 208, 213–222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Perle JG, Langsam LC, Randel A, Lutchman S, Levine AB, Odland AP, Nierenberg B and Marker CD (2013) Attitudes toward psychological telehealth: current and future clinical psychologists' opinions of internet-based interventions. Journal of Clinical Psychology 69, 100–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Price LM (2007) Transition to community: a program to help clients with schizophrenia move from inpatient to community care; a pilot study. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 21, 336–344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Salzer MS, Tunner T and Charney NJ (2004) A low-cost, telephone intervention to enhance schizophrenia treatment: a demonstration study. Schizophrenia Research 66, 75–76. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Schizophrenia Commission (2015) The Abandoned Illness: A Report by the Schizophrenia Commission. London: Rethink Mental Illness. [Google Scholar]
  50. Simon GE, Ludman E, Unutzer J and Bauer MS (2002) Design and implementation of a randomized trial evaluating systematic care for bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disorders 4, 226–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Simon GE, Ludman EJ, Bauer MS, Unutzer J and Operskalski B (2006) Long-term effectiveness and cost of a systematic care program for bipolar disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 63, 500–508. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Simon GE, Ludman EJ, Unutzer J, Bauer MS, Operskalski B and Rutter C (2005) Randomized trial of a population-based care program for people with bipolar disorder. Psychological Medicine 35, 13–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Spring B, McFadden HG, Rademaker AW and Hitsman B (2011) Behavioral interventions to promote smoking cessation and prevent weight gain: a reply. Addiction 106, 674–675, discussion 675-6, 676–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wenze SJ, Gaudiano BA, Weinstock LM, Tezanos KM and Miller IW (2015) Adjunctive psychosocial intervention following hospital discharge for patients with bipolar disorder and comorbid substance use: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry Research 228, 516–525. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wykes T, Steel C, Everitt B and Tarrier N (2008) Cognitive behavior therapy for schizophrenia: effect sizes, clinical models, and methodological rigor. Schizophrenia Bulletin 34, 523–537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001125.

S0033291718001125sup001.zip (1.8MB, zip)

click here to view supplementary material


Articles from Psychological Medicine are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES