Anthony J. Pelosi

General psychiatry, still in no-man's land after all these years: commentary, Pelosi - Volume 225 Issue 1

Specialist early intervention teams consider clinician–patient engagement and continuity of care to be a driving philosophy behind the treatment they provide to people who have developed schizophrenia or a related psychotic illness. In almost all countries where this service model has been implemented there is a dearth of available data about what is happening to patients following time-limited treatment. Information on discharge pathways in England indicates that some early intervention specialists are discharging most of their patients from all psychiatric services after only 2 or 3 years of input. Some ex-patients will be living in a state of torment and neglect due to an untreated psychosis. In the UK, general practitioners should refuse to accept these discharge pathways for patients with insight-impairing mental illnesses.

A formal complaint was lodged with the British Psychological Society in 1995 that alleged serious scientific misconduct by Hans J Eysenck. The complaint referred to research into the links between personality traits and the causes, prevention and treatment of cancer and heart disease. Using a framework of institutional logics, we criticise the Society’s decision not to hear this complaint at a full disciplinary hearing. We urge the BPS to investigate this complaint afresh. We also support calls for the establishment of an independent National Research Integrity Ombudsperson to deal more effectively with allegations of research misconduct.

Background: Clinical guidelines for depression in adults recommend the use of outcome measures and stepped care models in routine care. Such measures are based on symptom severity, but response to treatment is likely to also be influenced by personal and contextual factors. This observational study of a routine clinical sample sought to examine the extent to which “symptom severity measures” and “complexity measures” assess different aspects of patient experience, and how they might relate to clinical outcomes, including disengagement from treatment.Methods: Subjects with symptoms of depression (with or without comorbid anxiety) were recruited from people referred to an established Primary Care Mental Health Team using a stepped care model. Each participant completed three baseline symptom measures (the Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ), Generalised Anxiety Disorder questionnaire (GAD) and Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-10)), and two assessments of “case complexity” (the Minnesota-Edinburgh Complexity Assessment Measure (MECAM) and a local complexity assessment). Clinician perception of likely completion of treatment and patient recovery was also assessed. Outcome measures were drop out and clinical improvement on the PHQ.Results: 298 subjects were recruited to the study, of whom 258 had a sufficient dataset available for analysis. Data showed that the three measures of symptom severity used in this study (PHQ, GAD and CORE-10) seemed to be measuring distinct characteristics from those associated with the measures of case complexity (MECAM, previous and current problem count). Higher symptom severity scores were correlated with improved outcomes at the end of treatment, but there was no association between outcome and complexity measures. Clinicians could predict participant drop-out from care with some accuracy, but had no ability to predict outcome from treatment.Conclusions: These results highlight the extent to which drop-out complicates recovery from depression with or without anxiety in real-world settings, and the need to consider other factors beyond symptom severity in planning care. The findings are discussed in relation to a growing body of literature investigating prognostic indicators in the context of models of collaborative care for depression.

During the 1980s and 1990s, Hans J Eysenck conducted a programme of research into the causes, prevention and treatment of fatal diseases in collaboration with one of his protégés, Ronald Grossarth-Maticek. This led to what must be the most astonishing series of findings ever published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature with effect sizes that have never otherwise been encounterered in biomedical research. This article outlines just some of these reported findings and signposts readers to extremely serious scientific and ethical criticisms that were published almost three decades ago. Confidential internal documents that have become available as a result of litigation against tobacco companies provide additional insights into this work. It is suggested that this research programme has led to one of the worst scientific scandals of all time. A call is made for a long overdue formal inquiry.

People with serious mental illness have consistently higher levels of mortality and morbidity than the general population. They have greater levels of cardiovascular disease, metabolic disease, diabetes, and respiratory illness. Although genetics may have a role in the physical health problems of these people, lifestyle and environmental factors such as smoking, obesity, poor diet, and low levels of physical activity play a prominent part. To review the effects of dietary advice for schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (September 09, 2013 and February 24, 2016). We planned to include all randomised clinical trials focusing on dietary advice versus standard care. The review authors (RP, KTP) independently screened search results but did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review’s criteria. We did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. Dietary advice has been shown to improve the dietary intake of the general population. Research is needed to determine whether dietary advice can have a similar benefit in people with serious mental illness.