Receipt and targeting of evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people living with psychoses: findings from the second Australian national survey of psychosis.

Abstract

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) recommend evidence-based psychosocial interventions (EBPIs) to improve consumer recovery; however, availability appears limited. We describe receipt of six EBPIs, reported by people with psychoses, and associations with service and consumer characteristics, including indicators of need (eligibility) and benefit (suitability). Participants in the 2010 Australian national survey of psychosis (n = 1825) were interviewed to assess demographic, functional, mental and physical health characteristics and service use in the previous year. Six EBPIs (Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for psychosis; Family Psycho-Education (FPE); Relapse Prevention Planning (RPP); Skills Training; Supported Employment; and Assertive Community Treatment) were chosen, based on the strength and consistency of CPG recommendations. Associations between receipt of interventions and eligibility and suitability indicators were examined via correlations and χ2. Logistic regression was used to predict receipt of one or more EBPIs and to identify predictors of each individual EBPI. Less than one-quarter of the sample reported receipt of an evidence-based level of any intervention: rates ranged from 3.4% (FPE) to 21.1% (RPP). The model predicting receipt of one or more EBPIs was statistically significant (χ2 (20, n = 1746) = 216.12, p < 0.01) and marginally useful. Nine variables contributed uniquely, of which six were service characteristics. The strongest predictors of receipt were being assigned a psychologist as a case manager (p < 0.01, OR(CI) = 2.36(1.50-3.72)) and accessing a non-clinical mental health support service in the past year (p < 0.01, OR(CI) = 2.01(1.60-2.51)). Prior reports of limited receipt of EBPIs are reinforced. There is patchy evidence for targeting of EBPIs to those who might benefit most. Service characteristics contribute more to the prediction of receipt than clinical characteristics. Greater implementation effort and better targeting are required to bridge evidence-practice gaps, including improved evidence-based practice literacy among professionals and needs-based service re-design to improve provision and optimise consumer outcomes.