Piloting MOL Intervention for Neuroleptic Decision Making
NCT ID: NCT03537040
Last Updated: 2019-05-21
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
5 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2018-06-27
2019-05-10
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Modular Protocol for Mental Health (MPMH)
NCT03143634
A Study of the Effectiveness of Electronic Interventions on the Standardized Prescription Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs
NCT03724669
Efficacy of Agomelatine in Patients With Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
NCT01108393
Evaluation of Safety and Pharmacodynamics of OP0201 Compared to Placebo in Healthy Adults
NCT03828149
Pharmaco-Neuroimaging Studies of Approach/Avoidance Behaviors and Post-Mortem Studies: Pharmacological Manipulation
NCT05232032
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Frequently people discontinue without professional involvement, which is associated with negative outcomes. It is a particularly high risk period for relapse, especially if withdrawal is done quickly. There is an urgent need to advance practices in helping service-users to make a decision regarding neuroleptic medication that can then be supported by clinicians.
Current interventions regarding medication use predominantly focus on increasing adherence to medication regimes using, for example, financial incentives. This raises ethical concerns over the potential for service users' priorities and preferences to be disregarded, leading to increased coercion and reduced empowerment for service users. The recovery movement emphasises the need to understand personal priorities when considering treatment options and informed choice and shared-decision making is promoted by government initiatives and practice guidelines.
Shared decision-making commonly occurs within physical health settings. Patient decision aids have been found to improve patients' knowledge of available options and help patients to have more accurate expectations of potential benefits and harms, reach choices that are more consistent with personal values and participate in decision making. Despite this, shared-decision making has not been adopted more widely and is particularly poor within mental health settings.
The current study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention aimed at helping service users in mental health services think about their own personal priorities and decision-making around medication use. Current psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and motivational interviewing (MI), view decision-making in terms of individuals making cost-benefit analyses, which then informs their "planned" behaviour. Such interventions thus target the identification of desirable medication related behaviours and then help the individual to make those behaviours occur.
Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) offers an alternative framework in which to understand medication related decision-making and behaviour. PCT regards all behaviour as goal directed but states that individuals control their experiences (or input) not their behaviour (or output). From this perspective, behaviour is understood as a means by which an individual resolves discrepancies between how they currently experience something (a current perception) and the way they want that experience to be. There is recognition that people are usually unaware of many of the different priorities (or goals) they hold, although these priorities/ goals are often incompatible (in conflict). An intervention informed by PCT (Method of Levels; MOL) would, therefore, target increasing an individual's awareness of the different personal priorities/ goals they hold in relation to medication use. The intervention would focus on exploring conflict between personal priorities, as from a PCT perspective; conflict is what causes ambivalence or difficulties in being able to enact certain planned behaviours. The aim in the current study would be to use MOL to help people develop their awareness of what is important to them in relation to medication use, as opposed to focusing on planning specific behaviours.
The aim in the current study would be to use MOL to help people explore their decision around the use of neuroleptic medication. Traditionally the focus of a MOL session is determined by the client and can vary from person to person, however, for this study the sessions will be specifically focused on neuroleptic medication use. The sessions will aim to help people explore a range of thoughts and feelings about decisions around medication use and how these relate to other important life values and goals. Another key aim of sessions will be to help people develop awareness of conflicts in their goals so that they might begin to find potential resolution. Due to the nature of the intervention being very patient-led and idiosyncratic, the outcome will vary from person to person. The intervention does not attempt to increase adherence or encourage discontinuation to the neuroleptic medication. It aims to help people develop awareness of how they feel about using neuroleptic medication and how medication might relate to other things that are important to them in life.
If this is a feasible and acceptable approach to use then future research would explore whether prescribers could incorporate this approach to working in their consultations with service users.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NA
SINGLE_GROUP
OTHER
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Method of Levels
Talking therapy- duration and frequency of sessions to be determined by participant
Method of Levels
Talking Therapy
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Method of Levels
Talking Therapy
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Capacity to provide informed written consent
* Able to converse in English proficiently
* Currently under the care of an Early Intervention Service or Community Mental Health Team
* Ambivalent around medication use
* Experience of psychosis
* Be able to be assessed in an outpatient facility (exceptions will be made for disabilities)
Exclusion Criteria
* If significant risk of harm to self or others is present
* If there is an organic basis for psychosis
16 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
University of Manchester
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Rea Dicks
Trainee Clinical Psychologist
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Sara Tai
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of Manchester
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust
Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust
Manchester, , United Kingdom
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Moncrieff J. Does antipsychotic withdrawal provoke psychosis? Review of the literature on rapid onset psychosis (supersensitivity psychosis) and withdrawal-related relapse. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006 Jul;114(1):3-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00787.x.
Mansell W, Carey TA. A century of psychology and psychotherapy: is an understanding of 'control' the missing link between theory, research, and practice? Psychol Psychother. 2009 Sep;82(Pt 3):337-53. doi: 10.1348/147608309X432526. Epub 2009 Apr 1.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
238098
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.