Chapter 3 68 TABLE 1 Results of four completed RCTs on IMR (by studya b) Hasson-Ohayon et al. 2007 (17) Levitt et al. 2009 (18) Färdig et al. 2011 (16) Salyers et al. 2014 (15) Consumer report IMR Scale. NS .36 .29 NS Patient activation NS Recovery NS NS Hope NS Coping NS .14–.19c Knowledge about mental illness .14d Psychiatric symptoms NS Satisfaction with services Quality of life, community functioning, and social support NS NS Medication adherence NS Clinician report IMR Scale .28 .39 .34 Quality of life, community functioning, and social support .52 Psychiatric symptoms Substance abuse NS Observer-rated psychiatric symptoms -.20 .38 NS Interviewer-rated Quality of Life NS Objective outcome Hospitalizations and emergency Visits NS NS NS NS Employment NS Medication dosage NS Inpatient admission NS Inpatient psychiatric admission NS Length of inpatient stay NS Length of inpatient psychiatric stay NS a The results of the studies of Hasson-Ohayon et al. 2007 (17), Levitt et al. 2009 (18), Färdig et al. 2011 (16) and notes b, c and d are taken from McGuire et al. 2014 (14) b Results reflect comparisons from baseline to the longest follow-up period. Studies reported only one scale for each category. Only significant (p,.05) effect sizes (Cohen’s d) are reported. Effect sizes for Färdig et al. (16) are reported as η2. A blank cell indicates that the variable was not measured. NS: not significant. c Range from the four of eight subscales of the Ways of Coping Scale with significant results d Knowledge and goals subscale of the consumer reported IMR Scale Before designing the main study, we conducted a pilot study to explore the feasibility of an RCT and to provide practical guidelines for its implementation. This study suggested that an RCT on IMR was feasible: not only could sufficient participants be recruited for all six IMR-groups, which could be established with good mean fidelity, but support for a broader implementation of IMR could also be identified (20). Research aims The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the IMR programme with that of CAU in people with SMI. Specifically, we wish to compare the effects of ‘IMR + CAU’ with those of ‘CAU only’ on illness management and recovery.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw