BACKGROUND:A randomised controlled trial of day treatment with community care for patients with schizophrenic and affective disorders, referred for in-patient psychiatric treatment, was conducted to evaluate patterns of treatment and the course of illness with its psychosocial consequences over a period of two years.METHOD:Seventy patients, of whom 34 had affective and 36 had schizophrenic disorder, were assigned to the experimental condition (day treatment with ambulatory and domiciliary care), and 33 patients, of whom 16 had affective and 17 had schizophrenic disorder, were assigned to the control condition of standard clinical care.RESULTS:Day treatment with community care was feasible for 40.6% of the affective patients and 33.3% of the schizophrenic patients. The direct treatment costs of both disorders, based on numbers of in- and day-patient days and out-patient contacts over two years, appeared more or less the same. Patients benefited equally from day treatment as from in-patient treatment, although there were some gains in self-care and in functioning in the household among experimentals. Although schizophrenics were socioeconomically worse off, and also suffered from more (severe) symptoms and social disabilities than the affective patients at entry into the study, they were similar at two years. This finding is unexpected, compared with other follow-up studies. Extra cost for patients and families were not observed. Patients and their families in the experimental condition were significantly more satisfied with the treatment. Experimental patients spent much more time at home during admission, remained much less time in secluded wards, and were more compliant with treatment.CONCLUSIONS:Day treatment could be considered a cost-effective alternative to in-patient treatment.

The course of the psychopathology and social functioning in an experimental day-treatment group referred for inpatient psychiatric treatment is compared with that of a control group receiving standard inpatient care. During a follow-up period of 2 years subjects were interviewed three times. The interview comprised information about psychiatric symptoms, psychological functions, psychiatric diagnosis and social-role functioning. Apart from these discrete assessments an effort was made to map episodes of illness throughout the follow-up period. Upon entry the groups did not differ in terms of psychopathology or social functioning. At follow-up both groups had improved significantly with respect to symptomatology, psychological and social functioning. The extent to which the groups improved did not differ significantly regarding pathology, but self-care improved more in the experimental group. The average duration of episodes of illness was similar for the experimental and control group. During the 2-year follow-up patients suffered from a well-defined disorder during an average of 11 months. The fact that approximately 40% of them were still a psychiatric case after 2 years further underscores the severity of their pathology.

Objective: Because previous studies of day treatment as an alternative to inpatient treatment bad major disadvantages or methodological shortcomings, the authors conducted a randomized controlled trial to estimate and predict the extent to which day treatment is feasible for unselected patients referred for inpatient treatment. Method: Of 160 patients, 57 were randomly assigned to the control condition and 103 were assigned to the experimental condition. Control patients received standard clinical care. In the experimental condition, day treatment was attempted as soon as the patient's condition permitted. The average number of nights per week that experimental patients spent away from the hospital was compared to the average number of nights away for patients under standard care. Results: Day treatment was satisfactory for 40% of the experimental patients but was completely infeasible for another 40%. The level of surveillance needed in the first week, physical illness, number of previous admissions, depressive symptoms, and treatment by qualified psychiatrists versus registrars were variables predictive of these differences. Conclusions: In this unselected group of patients, no absolute contraindications against day treatment were found. This suggests that the selection criteria applied in nearly all other controlled studies on the subject were unwarranted. The approach used in this study facilitated treatment in the least restrictive environment possible.

The feasibility of day treatment with community care for schizophrenic patients was tested by means of a longitudinal randomized experiment with 34 experimentals and 16 controls: 38 percent could be treated satisfactorily in a day program that included a very active ambulatory service. The new approach did not improve prognosis with respect to psychiatric symptomatology, social role disabilities, or number of readmissions during the first year of followup. Total cost of treatment was less for day-treatment patients than for ordinary clinical patients.

In a 2 × 2 factorial design massed vs spaced and therapist vs self-controlled exposure were compared with obsessive-compulsive patients. Intersession interval was varied keeping constant the length of exposure time and number of exposure sessions. Treatment in all conditions was home based. Treatment led to highly statistical and significant improvements on all measures. Massed exposure was as effective as spaced exposure; self-controlled exposure proved to be as effective as therapist-controlled exposure.

Compared the effects of communication skills training (CST) and cognitive therapy (CGT) in 32 severely distressed couples. Ss receiving CST showed significant improvement on main targets, the Communication Questionnaire, and a relationship beliefs inventory. CGT resulted also in significant improvements on these measures. On the direct behavioral observation measure, CST was superior to CGT. A direct comparison between both conditions indicated that CGT was more effective on the main targets, whereas CST was more effective on direct behavioral observation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

The current study presents data on reliability and validity of the Relationship Beliefs Inventory (RBI), a 40-item questionnaire which was designed to assess beliefs people hold about intimate relationships. The RBI was administered to clinical and non-clinical couples along with measures of marital functioning, communication, and irrational beliefs. The RBI-scales are relatively unaffected by social desirability and have adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Evidence was provided for its construct validity, but discriminant validity is poor.