Living Well: An Intervention to Improve Medical Illness Self-Management Among Individuals With Serious Mental Illness
Abstract
Objective:
Many adults with serious mental illness have significant medical illness burden and poor illness self-management. In this study, the authors examined Living Well, a group-based illness self-management intervention for adults with serious mental illness that was cofacilitated by two providers, one of whom has lived experience with co-occurring mental health and medical conditions.
Methods:
Adults with serious mental illness (N=242) were randomly assigned to Living Well or an active control condition. Participants completed assessments of quality of life; health attitudes; self-management behaviors; and symptoms at baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up. Emergency room use was assessed by means of chart review. Mixed-effects models examined group × time interactions on outcomes.
Results:
Compared with the control group, adults in Living Well had greater improvements at posttreatment in mental health–related quality of life (t=2.15, p=.032), self-management self-efficacy (t=4.10, p<.001), patient activation (t=2.08, p=.038), internal health locus of control (t=2.01, p=.045), behavioral and cognitive symptom management (t=2.77, p=.006), and overall psychiatric symptoms (t=–2.02, p=.044); they had greater improvements at follow-up in physical activity–related self-management (t=2.55, p=.011) and relationship quality (t=−2.45, p=.015). No effects were found for emergency room use. The control group exhibited greater increases in physical health–related quality of life at posttreatment (t=−2.23, p=.026). Significant group differences in self-management self-efficacy (t=2.86,p=.004) and behavioral and cognitive symptom management (t=2.08, p= .038) were maintained at follow-up.
Conclusions:
Compared with an active control group, a peer-cofacilitated illness self-management group was more effective in improving quality of life and self-management self-efficacy among adults with serious mental illness.
Individuals with serious mental illness (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, major depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder) have reduced life expectancy compared with the general population because of their elevated rates of chronic medical conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular and respiratory disease (1–4). Poor self-management of chronic medical conditions among this group exacerbates the course of medical illness (5). Strategies to improve illness self-management among individuals with serious mental illness and co-occurring medical conditions are needed (6).
Peer interventions for illness self-management are led by individuals who are themselves managing a chronic medical condition and can provide effective models. One such intervention that has established efficacy is the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP), which consists of six peer-led group sessions, each lasting for 2 to 2.5 hours, that are focused on goal setting and problem solving (7). A growing workforce of peer specialists with lived experience of mental illness could be used to promote illness self-management among adults with serious mental illness (8).
Four studies have examined the CDSMP for individuals with serious mental illness. In a nonrandomized, pre-post intervention study, Lorig et al. (9) trained certified peer providers working at community mental health centers in the CDSMP; survey data indicated improvements on numerous health indicators. Druss et al. (10) adapted the CDSMP for individuals with serious mental illness, creating the Health and Recovery Peer Program (HARP), which consists of six 2.5-hour sessions. HARP has been tested in two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 10, 11) with positive results; in the second RCT (N=400), HARP was associated with significant improvements in physical health– and mental health–related quality of life and mental health recovery (11).
Living Well (12) is also based on the CDSMP but was substantially revised in content and structure for ease of implementation with consumers with serious mental illness in outpatient mental health settings (e.g., shorter sessions, 12 sessions instead of six, repetition of material, option for cofacilitation by a nonpeer). In a pilot RCT (N=63), compared with usual care, Living Well was associated with significant improvements in self-efficacy, patient activation, illness self-management behaviors, and health-related quality of life at postintervention. Notably, the Lorig et al. (9) study was uncontrolled, whereas the Druss et al. (10, 11) and Goldberg et al. (12) studies used a usual care control condition. Thus, although a growing literature supports the use of the CDSMP model with individuals with serious mental illness, a large RCT with an active control condition has not occurred. Moreover, the CDSMP model has not been tested among veterans with serious mental illness; given that veterans on average have poorer health than nonveterans (13), this is a significant gap.
This study aimed to conduct a large RCT comparing Living Well, a 12-session group intervention co-led by a peer (a veteran with co-occurring mental and physical health conditions) and a nonpeer facilitator, with 12 sessions of a didactic Medical Illness Education and Support group led by a nonpeer facilitator. Active ingredients of the Living Well intervention that were not present in the control condition were as follows: a peer facilitator; skills training in goal setting, action planning, and problem solving; the setting of weekly health goals; and positive reinforcement of small steps toward health goals. We hypothesized that participants in the Living Well intervention would exhibit greater improvements in physical health– and mental health–related quality of life (the primary outcome), self-efficacy, patient activation, and illness self-management behaviors and greater decreases in emergency room (ER) use than participants in the active control condition at posttreatment and three-month follow-up.
Methods
Participants and Procedures
Participants were recruited from outpatient programs at three VA medical centers in the Mid-Atlantic region—two urban, one rural—between January 2014 and April 2016. Potential participants were identified by means of chart review, clinician referral, and self-referral. Inclusion criteria were a chart diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, major depression with psychotic features, or posttraumatic stress disorder; chart diagnosis of a chronic respiratory or cardiovascular condition, diabetes, or arthritis; engagement in mental health services at a study site; capacity to consent; and approval from the participant’s mental health provider. Exclusion criteria included serious cognitive impairment or participation in a concurrent psychosocial treatment trial at the investigators’ home research center.
All study procedures were approved by the appropriate institutional review boards. Interested and eligible participants completed written informed consent. After giving consent, eligible participants completed baseline assessments and were randomly assigned to a condition. Assessors were master’s-level research assistants who received thorough training on all assessment measures, including intensive in-person training overseen by the principal investigator (RWG), repeated observation and feedback on assessments, and ongoing supervision.
We found no difference by gender or ethnicity among the proportion of participants who were randomly assigned to a treatment condition versus those who declined to participate or who did not complete a baseline assessment; in terms of race, African Americans were more likely to be randomly assigned (29%) than whites (19%; χ2=29.5, df=2, p<.001). [A figure showing the CONSORT diagram is available as an online supplement to this article.] Assessment measures were repeated after treatment (3 months after baseline) and at follow-up (6 months after baseline). Assessors were blind to treatment condition.
Interventions
Peer and nonpeer group facilitators for both conditions were trained and supervised by the study’s principal investigator (RWG) in weekly supervision sessions. Group sessions for both conditions were video recorded for fidelity.
Living Well is a manualized 12-session group intervention designed to enhance self-efficacy and motivation through education and skills training in action planning and problem solving. Sessions are 75 minutes long. A range of health-related topics are covered (e.g., healthy eating, physical activity, medication management, symptom management, and making good use of health care). Participants create weekly action plans related to each topic, report on their progress on previous action plans, and engage in group-based problem solving to overcome barriers to completing action plans. Peer providers complete weekly check-in calls with participants to provide problem solving for action plans. All groups were cofacilitated by a nonpeer provider (generally a research assistant with a master’s degree in clinical or counseling psychology—approximately the equivalent of a master’s-level clinician) and a peer provider, a veteran who had lived experience with co-occurring mental health and general medical conditions. Group leadership was shared equally by the peer and nonpeer facilitators. Both facilitators presented didactic information, aided participants in weekly goal setting and action planning, and helped facilitate problem solving. The peer facilitator also engaged in self-disclosure regarding his or her own illness self-management when it was relevant to session material and participants’ experiences.
The Medical Illness Education and Support group was a manualized 12-session intervention focused on living with a chronic medical condition. Sessions included standardized didactic review of common challenges experienced by people living with a chronic medical illness. Sessions were of similar length and frequency as Living Well. Groups were facilitated by a single nonpeer facilitator.
Measures
Basic demographic and psychosocial information was collected from participants. Current and lifetime medical conditions were solicited on the basis of interview items from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (14). Physical health– and mental health–related quality of life was assessed using the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12; 15), a widely used instrument with good psychometrics in this population (16). To assess attitudinal change, we used several measures with strong psychometric properties: the six-item Self-Management Self-Efficacy scale, based on a measure used in the original CDSMP evaluation (17); the Patient Activation Measure (18), which measures self-reported ability to actively participate in treatment encounters; and the six-item internal health locus of control subscale of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (19), which measures self-perceived control over one’s health.
We used the Instrument to Measure Self-Management (IMSM; 17), which is based on a measure used in the original CDSMP evaluation, to assess change in specific and general self-management behaviors and the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (20), a self-report scale with good psychometric properties (20), to assess medication adherence.
To assess psychiatric symptoms and recovery, we used the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale 24—Modified (BASIS-24; 21), a self-report instrument that measures psychiatric symptoms and has well-established psychometric properties, and the Maryland Assessment of Recovery Scale, a 25-item self-report instrument that measures recovery orientation and has good internal consistency and test-retest reliability (22).
We extracted ER use data from electronic medical records for the six months before baseline and the six months of the study. The outcome of ER visits was coded as binary, indicating whether the individual had an ER visit focused on a medical issue during either of the six-month timeframes.
Data Analysis
For continuous scale outcomes, we used linear mixed-effects models to test the effectiveness of Living Well compared with Medical Illness Education and Support. A random effect for class accounted for an intraclass correlation resulting from common group membership. Within-individual correlation among measurements over time was accounted for with an unstructured error correlation matrix. Regression terms in the model included intervention, time, and intervention×time interactions. Time was entered into the model by using two dummy variables—one for posttreatment and one for the follow-up time point—to compare group mean change from baseline to posttreatment separately from baseline to follow-up. The interaction terms estimated mean change in the Living Well group minus mean change in the control group. All available outcome measure data from baseline, posttreatment, and follow-up were included (intention-to-treat). All continuous outcome scales were checked for skew, and an appropriate transformation was applied as needed.
For the ER visit (yes-no) outcome, we used a logistic mixed-effects model for binary outcome. That model was specified parallel to the linear mixed-effects model for continuous scale outcomes, except that time represented two time periods—the 6-month period prior to baseline (“pre”) and the 6-month period after baseline (“post”).
This model estimates the probability of an ER visit during a time period on a log-odds scale. In particular, the interaction term estimated the difference in pre- to postchange in probability of an ER visit between the Living Well group and the control group on a log-odds scale. A negative coefficient estimate represents a greater reduction in Living Well relative to the control condition.
Statistical significance was defined as p<.05. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4.
Results
Intervention Attendance and Fidelity
Living Well participants attended a mean±SD of 5.4±4.4 of 12 weekly sessions, and Medical Illness Education and Support participants attended a mean of 6.4±4.2 of 12 weekly sessions. In the Living Well condition, 99 (80%) participants attended at least one group session, and 65 (52%) attended at least five group sessions. In the Medical Illness Education and Support condition, 100 participants (85%) attended at least one group session, and 76 (64%) attended at least five group sessions. Living Well participants were offered three monthly booster sessions after the 12-week curriculum, and they attended a mean of 0.8±1.1 booster sessions, with the majority of participants (N=74; 60%) not attending any booster sessions. Table 1 summarizes demographic and other characteristics of the participants.
| Total (N=242) | Living Well (N=124) | Control (N=118) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Demographic | ||||||
| Age (M±SD) | 57.8±7.7 | 58.5±7.6 | 57.0±7.8 | |||
| Male | 210 | 87 | 107 | 86 | 103 | 87 |
| Race | ||||||
| White | 69 | 29 | 31 | 25 | 38 | 32 |
| Black | 151 | 62 | 82 | 66 | 69 | 59 |
| Other or multiple races | 22 | 9 | 11 | 9 | 11 | 9 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Hispanic | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Non-Hispanic | 235 | 98 | 118 | 97 | 117 | 99 |
| At least a high school diploma or a GED | 225 | 93 | 114 | 92 | 111 | 94 |
| Psychiatric diagnosisb | ||||||
| Schizophrenia | 29 | 12 | 14 | 11 | 15 | 13 |
| Schizoaffective disorder | 38 | 16 | 23 | 19 | 15 | 13 |
| Bipolar disorder | 86 | 35 | 39 | 32 | 47 | 40 |
| Major depressive disorder with psychotic features | 12 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
| Psychosis not otherwise specified | 12 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 3 |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder | 71 | 29 | 38 | 31 | 33 | 28 |
| Health status and behaviors at baseline | ||||||
| N of classes of chronic medical conditions (M±SD) | 3.4±1.7 | 3.3±1.7 | 3.4±1.6 | |||
| Diabetes | 91 | 38 | 50 | 40 | 41 | 35 |
| Arthritis | 187 | 77 | 94 | 76 | 93 | 79 |
| Respiratory diseases | 27 | 11 | 16 | 13 | 11 | 9 |
| Cardiovascular diseases | 36 | 15 | 18 | 15 | 18 | 15 |
| Body mass index (M±SD) | 31.1±6.5 | 31.1±6.2 | 31.0±6.7 | |||
| Current smoker | 94 | 43 | 45 | 41 | 49 | 45 |
| Alcohol use in past 30 days | 63 | 28 | 28 | 25 | 35 | 32 |
| Drug use in past 30 days | 19 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 11 | 10 |
| Health care use | ||||||
| Usual source of medical care | 220 | 99 | 111 | 98 | 109 | 99 |
a
No significant baseline differences were found between groups on any variable.
b
Participants could have more than one psychiatric diagnosis.
A total of 30 Living Well sessions and 18 Medical Illness and Support sessions were rated by independent reviewers on facilitator competence and adherence to content. Each item was scored on a 3-point scale (0, unacceptable; 1, acceptable; and 2, excellent). Across the 30 recorded Living Well sessions, the full curriculum and all possible facilitator pairings were represented at least once. Mean scores were high in both the Living Well group (adherence=1.99; competence=1.98) and the Medical Illness and Support group (adherence=1.97; competence=1.95). No rated sessions included any ratings of unacceptable.
Outcomes
Treatment outcomes by group are displayed in Table 2. We found no group differences in SF-12 General Health Functioning score. At posttreatment but not at follow-up, Living Well participants exhibited greater increases in mental health–related quality of life and Medical Illness Education and Support participants exhibited greater increases in physical health–related quality of life. Living Well participants showed greater improvement on the Self-Management Self-Efficacy scale at posttreatment and follow-up and greater increases on the internal health locus of control subscale and the Patient Activation Measure at posttreatment but not follow-up. Participants in Living Well showed greater improvement on the IMSM behavioral and cognitive symptom management subscale at posttreatment and follow-up and greater improvement on the IMSM physical activity subscale at follow-up but not posttreatment, indicating a delayed effect. We found no other significant group differences for the IMSM and no group differences for the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale.
| Baseline | Postintervention | 3-month follow-up | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Living Well (N=124) | Control (N=118) | Living Well (N=105) | Control (N=107) | Baseline vs. postintervention | Living Well (N=106) | Control (N=104) | Baseline vs. 3-month follow-up | |||||||||||||
| Measure and outcome | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ESa | t | df | p | M | SD | M | SD | ESa | t | df | p |
| Functional | ||||||||||||||||||||
| SF-12 scoreb | ||||||||||||||||||||
| General health functioning | 40.4 | 12.0 | 38.9 | 12.5 | 42.5 | 11.3 | 41.6 | 12.2 | −.11 | −.91 | 622 | .362 | 42.9 | 12.0 | 39.2 | 12.2 | .18 | 1.47 | 622 | .142 |
| Physical health–related quality of life | 39.2 | 10.4 | 38.6 | 11.4 | 39.0 | 10.3 | 40.2 | 11.3 | −.21 | –2.23 | 619 | .026 | 40.3 | 10.2 | 38.4 | 12.3 | .10 | .95 | 619 | .342 |
| Mental health–related quality of life | 41.3 | 11.9 | 40.7 | 11.5 | 44.0 | 11.4 | 40.5 | 11.6 | .24 | 2.15 | 619 | .032 | 42.7 | 11.5 | 41.5 | 12.2 | .07 | .58 | 619 | .563 |
| Health attitudes | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Self-Management Self-Efficacy Scale scorec | 5.5 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 2.0 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 5.4 | 2.1 | .43 | 4.10 | 622 | <.001 | 6.0 | 2.0 | 5.4 | 2.0 | .32 | 2.86 | 622 | .004 |
| Patient activation scored | 60.8 | 15.2 | 58.8 | 14.6 | 64.3 | 14.0 | 58.9 | 14.3 | .21 | 2.08 | 622 | .038 | 63.4 | 14.6 | 60.5 | 16.1 | .04 | .35 | 622 | .727 |
| Internal health locus of controle | 26.4 | 5.9 | 26.1 | 5.9 | 27.0 | 4.8 | 25.5 | 6.3 | .23 | 2.01 | 622 | .045 | 26.6 | 5.4 | 25.7 | 5.5 | .11 | 1.07 | 622 | .285 |
| Behavioral | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Instrument to Measure Self-Management scoref | ||||||||||||||||||||
| General self-management behaviors | 2.7 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 2.6 | 1.2 | −.09 | −.61 | 620 | .544 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 2.5 | 1.2 | .11 | .76 | 620 | .446 |
| Use of health care | 2.9 | 1.4 | 2.5 | 1.4 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 2.9 | 1.3 | −.04 | −.39 | 620 | .699 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | −.07 | −.74 | 620 | .459 |
| Behavioral and cognitive symptom management | 2.2 | 1.1 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 2.2 | .9 | .29 | 2.77 | 620 | .006 | 2.5 | 1.1 | 2.3 | .9 | .22 | 2.08 | 620 | .038 |
| Social support | 2.3 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 1.3 | −.04 | −.30 | 620 | .762 | 2.2 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 1.3 | −.15 | –1.18 | 620 | .238 |
| Physical activity | 2.3 | 1.3 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 2.4 | 1.3 | .12 | .98 | 620 | .326 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 2.2 | 1.3 | .29 | 2.55 | 620 | .011 |
| Healthy eating | 2.6 | 1.3 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 2.7 | 1.1 | .04 | .43 | 620 | .667 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 2.8 | 1.2 | −.05 | −.37 | 620 | .709 |
| Morisky Medication Adherence Scale scoreg | 1.4 | 1.0 | 1.5 | .8 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.5 | .9 | −.19 | –1.50 | 622 | .134 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.4 | .9 | −.02 | −.19 | 622 | .852 |
| Symptoms and recovery | ||||||||||||||||||||
| BASIS-24 scoreh | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Overall | 1.6 | .8 | 1.6 | .8 | 1.4 | .7 | 1.6 | .8 | −.23 | –2.02 | 603 | .044 | 1.4 | 7 | 1.6 | .7 | −.17 | –1.40 | 603 | .162 |
| Depression | 1.6 | .9 | 1.7 | .9 | 1.5 | .8 | 1.7 | .9 | −.23 | –1.86 | 603 | .063 | 1.5 | .8 | 1.7 | .9 | −.13 | –1.03 | 603 | .304 |
| Relationships | 1.6 | 1.0 | 1.5 | .9 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | .8 | −.18 | –1.62 | 603 | .106 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.7 | .9 | −.32 | –2.45 | 603 | .015 |
| Psychosis | .9 | .7 | 1.0 | .6 | .8 | .7 | .9 | .6 | −.08 | −.79 | 603 | .430 | .8 | .6 | .9 | .6 | −.05 | −.50 | 603 | .619 |
| Maryland Assessment of Recovery Scale scorei | 3.9 | .7 | 3.8 | .7 | 4.0 | .7 | 3.8 | .7 | .16 | 1.65 | 622 | .099 | 4.0 | .7 | 3.8 | .7 | .12 | 1.22 | 622 | .222 |
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | ESb | t | df | p | N | % | N | % | ESb | t | df | p | |
| Emergency room visits (medical) | 49 | 40 | 45 | 38 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 47 | 38 | 48 | 41 | −.17j | .47 | 480 | .640 |
a
ES, effect size; calculated as group × time interaction divided by raw standard deviation at baseline.
b
SF-12, 12-item Short-Form Health Survey. Possible subscale scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater quality of life.
c
Possible scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater confidence.
d
Patient Activation Measure. Possible scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater activation.
e
Subscale of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control. Possible scores range from 0 to 36, with higher scores indicating greater internal locus of control.
f
Possible subscale scores range from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater frequency.
g
Possible scores range from 0 to 16, with higher scores indicating greater adherence. The distribution was skewed, so a square root transformation was applied before analysis.
h
BASIS-24, Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale 24–Modified. Possible scores range from 0 to 4. BASIS psychosis was skewed, so a square root transformation was applied before analysis.
i
Possible subscale scores range from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicated greater recovery orientation.
j
Change in proportion of participants in the treatment group with an ER visit versus change in the proportion in the control group on a log-odds scale. Negative estimate indicates greater observed reduction in the Living Well group versus the control group.
Living Well was associated with a greater decrease in BASIS-24 overall symptoms at posttreatment but not at follow-up and with delayed improvement on the BASIS-24 relationships subscale at follow-up. No other significant group differences were found for the BASIS-24 scales. There was a nonsignificant trend for greater improvement on the Maryland Assessment of Recovery Scale among Living Well participants at posttreatment but not at follow-up. No group differences in ER use were found at any time point.
Discussion and Conclusions
In a large, well-controlled RCT, participation in Living Well, a medical illness self-management intervention for individuals with serious mental illness co-led by peer and nonpeer facilitators, resulted in significant improvements in mental health– but not physical health–related quality of life immediately after treatment, as well as in improvement in self-efficacy and behavioral and cognitive symptom management at both posttreatment and follow-up, compared with participation in an active control condition, a didactic medical illness and support group. Compared with the control condition, Living Well was also associated with improved patient activation, psychiatric symptoms, quality of social relationships, and physical activity–related self-management.
Living Well had a large effect on self-efficacy that was maintained at follow-up. Adults with serious mental illness often have poor self-efficacy for health behaviors (23), which may result from limited exposure to role models and social support for wellness (24). Using a peer facilitator and a group-based format, Living Well provided a credible source of social support for health behaviors, which may have been a key ingredient in enhancing illness management self-efficacy. Illness management self-efficacy may, in turn, have led to increased self-management behaviors at postintervention or 3-month follow-up (i.e., behavioral and cognitive symptom management, physical activity–related self-management).
At posttreatment, participants in Living Well exhibited improvements across health attitudes, behavioral and cognitive symptom management, psychiatric symptoms, and mental health–related quality of life. At follow-up, Living Well was associated with improvements in interpersonal relationships. Although we did not test a mediation model, it may be that Living Well helped participants feel empowered to engage in symptom management behaviors, which were then associated with a decrease in psychiatric symptoms and an improvement in relationship quality and mental health functioning. The majority of these outcomes were significant at posttreatment and not maintained at follow-up, indicating that a longer intervention with more intensive strategies for maintenance and generalization may be warranted.
Although use of behavioral or cognitive symptom management strategies improved at posttreatment among Living Well participants, self-management of physical activity did not increase until three-month follow-up. It may be that individuals with serious mental illness initially implement stress management strategies because this is an area of more immediate need or because these strategies may easiest for them to internalize because they have previously been exposed to them in their mental health treatment. If Living Well were to be expanded to a longer intervention, facilitators might focus in the first several weeks on stress management before shifting to a focus on other health behaviors.
The only outcome that exhibited greater improvement in the Medical Illness Education and Support group was physical health–related quality of life, which was not maintained at three-month follow-up. It may be that to have an impact on physical health outcomes, an exclusive focus on physical health topics is required. Alternatively, it may be that for Living Well to have an impact on physical health–related quality of life, a longer intervention may be required to allow for attitudinal and behavioral changes to have eventual downstream impacts. Of note, the delay in physical activity change may mean that changes related to physical health–related quality of life would occur after the three-month time point; future studies with longer follow-up periods should explore this possibility.
Although several findings indicate that delivery of Living Well over a longer time period might be necessary to promote maintenance and generalization, it is possible that the intervention could be less intensive and still be effective. Living Well required a significant time commitment (attendance at 12 weekly face-to-face sessions), which may have contributed to the approximately 75% of potential participants who were contacted and declined to participate in the intervention. Among those who did consent, level of attendance varied widely, with half of the participants attending four or fewer sessions. Despite this, Living Well was associated with better short-term outcomes than the active control condition across a number of measures. This finding indicates that exposure to all of the intervention content was not necessary for a positive outcome; thus the active ingredients of Living Well (peer contact; skills training in goal setting, action planning, and problem solving; weekly goal setting; reinforcement of small steps toward health goals) could be delivered in a more condensed and easily accessible format, promoting more widespread participation. For example, there is a growing evidence base for Web- and app-based health and wellness interventions, supplemented with peer coaching support, for individuals with serious mental illness (25–27). Future studies should examine innovative ways to package and deliver Living Well to maximize accessibility, efficacy, and generalization.
Living Well did not affect ER use. Notably, the rate of ER use among the sample was considerable, which speaks to the medical illness burden among this population as well as the barriers that make it hard for such individuals to engage proactively in health care. It is possible that a psychosocial group intervention such as Living Well is not enough to address this problem, which may be attributable more to health care system issues. An intervention that directly connects individuals with serious mental illness to preventive health care may be needed to address their high levels of ER use.
The large sample size, recruitment of a veteran population with significant illness burden, and an active control condition were strengths of this study. Limitations included the fact that many of the outcome measures were based on self-report, the follow-up period was relatively brief, and the population was a majority male population that was engaged in mental health services, which could limit generalizability. In addition, attendance at intervention sessions was sporadic, with half of the participants attending four or fewer sessions; future studies should examine the optimal dose of the intervention required to achieve a positive benefit. Nonetheless, our findings support the use of a peer-cofacilitated psychosocial intervention to improve aspects of medical illness self-management among veterans with serious mental illness, especially in the short term. Specifically, the intervention was found to promote self-efficacy, patient activation, and other health attitudes; increase some illness self-management behaviors; attenuate psychiatric symptoms; and improve mental health–related quality of life. Future studies should examine strategies to maintain and generalize gains over a longer period and examine augmenting Living Well with direct provision of preventive health care.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Valerie Price, B.A., Certified Peer Support Specialist, for her critical role in the original development of the Living Well intervention.
Footnote
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the VA, the U.S. government, or other affiliated institutions.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201800162.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 80.95 KB
References
1.
Das-Munshi J, Chang CK, Dutta R, et al: Ethnicity and excess mortality in severe mental illness: a cohort study. Lancet. Psychiatry 2017; 4:389–399
2.
Liu NH, Daumit GL, Dua T, et al: Excess mortality in persons with severe mental disorders: a multilevel intervention framework and priorities for clinical practice, policy and research agendas. World Psychiatry (WPA) 2017; 16:30–40
3.
Olfson M, Gerhard T, Huang C, et al: Premature mortality among adults with schizophrenia in the United States. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:1172–1181
4.
Walker ER, McGee RE, Druss BG: Mortality in mental disorders and global disease burden implications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 2015; 72:334–341
5.
Parks J, Svendsen D, Singer P, et al. (eds): Morbidity and Mortality in People With Serious Mental Illness. Alexandria, VA, National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 2006
6.
Whiteman KL, Naslund JA, DiNapoli EA, et al: Systematic review of integrated general medical and psychiatric self-management interventions for adults with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2016; 67:1213–1225
7.
Chodosh J, Morton SC, Mojica W, et al: Meta-analysis: chronic disease self-management programs for older adults. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143:427–438
8.
Aschbrenner KA, Brunette MF: The role of peers in health interventions for serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69:497
9.
Lorig K, Ritter PL, Pifer C, et al: Effectiveness of the chronic disease self-management program for persons with a serious mental illness: a translation study. Community Ment Health J 2014; 50:96–103
10.
Druss BG, Zhao L, von Esenwein SA, et al: The Health and Recovery Peer (HARP) Program: a peer-led intervention to improve medical self-management for persons with serious mental illness. Schizophr Res 2010; 118:264–270
11.
Druss BG, Singh M, von Esenwein SA, et al: Peer-led self-management of general medical conditions for patients with serious mental illnesses: a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69:529–535
12.
Goldberg RW, Dickerson F, Lucksted A, et al: Living Well: an intervention to improve self-management of medical illness for individuals with serious mental illness. Psychiatr Serv 2013; 64:51–57
13.
Agha Z, Lofgren RP, VanRuiswyk JV, et al: Are patients at Veterans Affairs Medical Centers sicker? A comparative analysis of health status and medical resource use. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160:3252–3257
14.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III Questionnaire. Hyattsville, MD, US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993
15.
Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD: A 12-item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996; 34:220–233
16.
Salyers MP, Bosworth HB, Swanson JW, et al: Reliability and validity of the SF-12 Health Survey among people with severe mental illness. Med Care 2000; 38:1141–1150
17.
Lorig K, Steward A, Ritter P, et al: Outcome Measures for Health Education and Other Health Care Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage, 1996
18.
Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, et al: Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res 2004; 39:1005–1026
19.
Wallston KA, Wallston BS, DeVellis R: Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales. Health Educ Behav 1978; 6:160–170
20.
Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, et al: Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens 2008; 10:348–354
21.
Cameron IM, Cunningham L, Crawford JR, et al: Psychometric properties of the BASIS-24 (Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale-Revised) mental health outcome measure. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2007; 11:36–43
22.
Drapalski AL, Medoff D, Dixon L, et al: The reliability and validity of the Maryland Assessment of Recovery in Serious Mental Illness Scale. Psychiatry Res 2016; 239:259–264
23.
Ussher M, Stanbury L, Cheeseman V, et al: Physical activity preferences and perceived barriers to activity among persons with severe mental illness in the United Kingdom. Psychiatr Serv 2007; 58:405–408
24.
Bandura A: Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, Freeman, 1997
25.
Young AS, Cohen AN, Goldberg R, et al: Improving weight in people with serious mental illness: the effectiveness of computerized services with peer coaches. J Gen Intern Med 2017; 32(suppl 1):48–55
26.
Aschbrenner KA, Naslund JA, Shevenell M, et al: A pilot study of a peer-group lifestyle intervention enhanced with mHealth technology and social media for adults with serious mental illness. J Nerv Ment Dis 2016; 204:483–486
27.
Whiteman KL, Lohman MC, Bartels SJ: A peer- and technology-supported self-management intervention. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:420
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: Cover image © Africa Studio.
History
Received: 30 March 2018
Revision received: 6 July 2018
Revision received: 31 July 2018
Accepted: 30 August 2018
Published online: 24 October 2018
Published in print: January 01, 2019
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service: IIR 11-216
This research was supported by the VA Health Services Research and Development Service (IIR 11-216; Dr. Goldberg, principal investigator), the VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service (CDA IK2RX002339, Dr. Muralidharan, principal investigator; and CDA 1IK2RX001836, Dr. Klingaman, principal investigator), and the VISN 5 MIRECC.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).