Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-cxxrm Total loading time: 0.532 Render date: 2021-12-01T07:07:14.621Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Schizophrenia practice guidelines: International survey and comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Wolfgang Gaebel*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf
Stefan Weinmann
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry II, University of Ulm, Germany
Norman Sartorius
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Geneva, Switzerland
Wolfgang Rutz
Affiliation:
Unit for Psychiatry and Health Promotion, Academic University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
John S. McIntyre
Affiliation:
Unity Health System, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, Rochester, New York, USA
*
Professor Wolfgang Gaebel, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Bergische Landstrasse 2, D-40629 Düsseldorf, Germany. E-mail: Wolfgang.Gaebel@uni-duesseldorf.de
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Schizophrenia guidelines differ considerably in methodology and content.

Aims

To systematically compare national schizophrenia guidelines from different countries.

Method

An international survey was conducted on guideline development and a methodological comparison was made using a validated guideline appraisal instrument (the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation Europe).

Results

The methodological quality of many schizophrenia guidelines was at best moderate. Few guidelines had included key stakeholders in their development process. Although pharmacotherapy recommendations were similar, there were strong variations in the type of psychosocial interventions recommended.

Conclusions

The methodological quality of guidelines has a strong influence on their applicability However, the lack of financial means to develop and implement guidelines is a serious problem. Independent international organisations could contribute to defining a core set of unbiased schizophrenia treatment recommendations. In countries with a shortage of resources, this could be a basis for adaptation to different cultural and economic backgrounds in collaboration with stakeholders.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Mental health disorders pose an increasing burden on societies all over the world (Reference Murray and LopezMurray & Lopez, 1996); at the same time, treatment variations within and between countries are prevalent. In the case of schizophrenia this holds true particularly for the prescription of psychotropic drugs in non-Western societies (Reference Patel and AndradePatel & Andrade, 2003; Reference Apiquian, Fresan and Fuente-SandovalApiquian et al, 2004), but also applies to the availability of psychosocial treatments. In different regions of the world, practice guidelines have been developed to improve schizophrenia care. There is no doubt that these practice guidelines have to be based on – or to have to consider adequately – scientific evidence with regard to key treatment recommendations (Reference McIntyreMcIntyre, 2002). The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed its Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care (World Health Organization, 1996) using a consensus approach. These guidelines have also been field-tested (Reference Goldberg, Sharp and NanayakkaraGoldberg et al, 1995) and served as a primer for the organisation of mental health systems in some countries. Nevertheless, it remains unresolved how a core set of universally valid secondary and tertiary psychiatric care recommendations can be defined which could easily be used to develop national or regional mental health guidelines without disregarding local health systems or cultures.

The aims of our study were to collect available schizophrenia guidelines from different countries of the world; to evaluate them according to pre-defined criteria; to compare them with respect to key recommendations; to obtain expert opinions about their possible impact on psychiatric care in the different countries; and to collect information about possible support on establishing guideline development, implementation and evaluations made in other countries.

METHOD

Guideline identification and assessment

This guideline comparison project was commissioned by the WHO Regional Office for Europe (W.R.) and the World Psychiatric Association (N.S.; Section of Quality Assurance in Psychiatry, J.M.; Section of Schizophrenia, W.G.). To identify relevant guidelines, 122 member organisations of the World Psychiatric Association from 104 nations and other organisations concerned with guideline development in different countries were contacted by mail and asked to send original documents of national or local practice guidelines in the area of schizophrenia. In addition, the American National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Guidelines International Network, the Centres for Reviews and Dissemination of the University of York, the German Guideline Clearinghouse of the German Board of Physicians and the Medline database (1966 to February 2004) were screened for schizophrenia guidelines, and scientific psychiatric journals were scanned. Written guideline documents were included that met the following criteria: the disorder was schizophrenia, with or without inclusion of schizoaffective disorder; psychiatric care of the acute and/or chronic phase was considered; the guideline had a national or regional scope; and the authors and the development process were described. Guidelines addressing one particular aspect of schizophrenia treatment and those developed primarily for international use by expert groups from different countries were not included.

To measure the scientific quality of practice guidelines, we selected a recently published instrument developed by an international group of guideline experts, the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation Europe (AGREE) rating scale (AGREE Collaboration, 2003). The AGREE instrument assesses both the quality of reporting and the quality of the guideline development process. It provides an appraisal of the predicted validity of a guideline, which is the likelihood that it will achieve its intended outcome. The AGREE instrument consists of 23 key items grouped into six domains with a four-point Likert scale to score each item. The six domains are:

  1. (a) scope and purpose (three items);

  2. (b) stakeholder involvement (four items);

  3. (c) rigour of development (seven items);

  4. (d) clarity and presentation (four items);

  5. (e) applicability (three items);

  6. (f) editorial independence (two items).

Each domain is intended to capture a separate dimension of guideline quality. The total score and the domain scores are calculated by summing the scores of the individual items within a domain or the whole six domains, and by standardising the total as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The interrater reliability (intraclass correlations) for each AGREE domain lies between 0.39 (clarity and presentation) and 0.83 (rigour of development) with two reviewers and between 0.57 and 0.91 with four reviewers (AGREE Collaboration, 2003). Two reviewers used this instrument independently, and in the case of disagreement, the average scores were computed. For guidelines written in languages other than English, German, French, Spanish or Italian, we enlisted the help of doctors with the necessary foreign language skills to extract the relevant information. Consequently, the assessments could not be made masked to the origin of the guidelines. All reviewers received a standard instruction on how to use the AGREE instrument.

Content analysis of guidelines and international guideline survey

In addition to the AGREE assessment, guidelines were compared with respect to key recommendations, including the following: pharmacological first-line therapy in acute psychosis (not first-episode) and in treatment-resistant schizophrenia; antipsychotic dosage for acute and maintenance treatment; recommended duration of antipsychotic treatment after first and multiple episodes; management of side-effects with first-generation antipsychotics; antipsychotic polypharmacy; recommendations for therapy of depressive symptoms; and recommendations for psychoeducation, cognitive – behavioural therapy, employment promotion and community treatment.

A survey questionnaire was developed and sent to the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) member organisations together with the request to send a copy of the guideline documents. The questionnaire covered guideline use, development and implementation in the respective countries, barriers to guideline development and implementation, and a question about the potential benefit of WHO or WPA help in producing or adopting guidelines for national use.

RESULTS

Identification of guidelines

A total of 27 guidelines from 21 different countries were identified, published between February 1994 and February 2004 (Fig. 1). Two guidelines (from Thailand and Japan) could not be evaluated owing to language problems, and one guideline (from Sweden) could not be retrieved. Therefore, 24 guidelines were evaluated with regard to methodological quality (AGREE guideline appraisal instrument) and content (Table 1).

Fig. 1 Guideline identification and survey response (WPA, World Psychiatric Association).

Table 1 Methodological quality of practice guidelines

Practice guideline AGREE domain (percentage of maximum available score) Total AGREE score
Code Developer Scope/purpose Stakeholder involvement Rigour of development Clarity of presentation Applicability Editorial independence
AT Austrian Society of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy (2001) 44 17 24 33 0 50 26
AU RANZCP (2003) 89 58 57 67 44 67 62
CA1 Canadian Psychiatric Association (1998) 67 25 24 42 11 83 36
CA2 College of Physicians of Quebec (1999) 33 8 14 50 0 33 22
CZ Czech Psychiatric Association (1999) 33 0 5 17 0 50 13
DE German Society of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Nervous Disease (1998) 56 42 29 67 22 33 41
DK Danish Psychiatric Association (2001) 44 8 10 42 11 50 23
ES Spanish Society of Psychiatry (2000) 44 17 38 50 0 0 29
FI Finnish Medical Society (2001) 56 25 71 50 33 67 52
FR Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé (1994) 33 17 19 33 11 67 26
GB1 National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2003) 100 75 100 75 89 100 90
GB2 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (1998) 33 25 81 67 33 100 58
LT Chief Psychiatrist, Lithuanian Health Ministry (2002) 11 0 5 42 0 50 14
LV Latvian Psychiatric Society (2001) 33 17 5 42 0 0 20
NL Psychiatric Association of The Netherlands (1998) 33 17 14 25 0 17 17
NO Norwegian Psychiatric Association and Health Ministry (2000) 78 25 29 50 0 50 36
SG Ministry of Health of Singapore (2003) 44 17 38 83 33 50 43
SI Slovenian Republic Psychiatric Collegium (2000) 11 0 10 42 11 33 16
US1 American Psychiatric Association (2004) 100 42 86 92 33 83 71
US2 Patient Outcomes Research Team (1998) 78 42 62 58 44 50 55
US3 Expert Consensus Panel (2003) 56 25 48 42 11 17 36
US4 Texas Medication Algorithm Project Group (1999) 56 42 14 83 56 33 43
US5 Mount Sinai Conference on Pharmacotherapy of Schizophrenia (2002) 56 0 24 50 0 100 32
ZA Mental Health Information Centre, South Africa (2000) 11 8 10 50 0 50 19
Average score 50 23 34 52 18 51 37

Sixteen of the 24 guidelines comprised the whole therapy of schizophrenia: these were the guidelines from Australia (AU; Reference McGorry, Killackey and ElkinsMcGorry et al, 2003), Austria (AT; Reference Katschnig, Donat and FleischhackerKatschnig et al, 2002), Canada (CA1, Canadian Psychiatric Association, 1999; CA2, Collège des Médecins du Québec, 1999), the Czech Republic (CZ; Reference Libiger and RabochLibiger, 1999), Finland (FI; Reference SalokangasSalokangas, 2001), Germany (DE; Reference Gaebel and FalkaiGaebel & Falkai, 1998), the UK (GBI; National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2002), Latvia (LV; Latvijas Psihiatru Asiciacijas, 2001), Lithuania (LT; Lietuvos Respublikos Sveikatos Apsaugos Ministro, 2002), The Netherlands (NL; Reference Buitelaar, van Ewijk and HarmsBuitelaar et al, 1998), Norway (NO; Statens Helsetilsyn, 2003), Singapore (SG; Singapore Ministry of Health, 2003), Slovenia (SI; Reference Zmitek, Tavcar and KocmurZmitek et al, 2000) and the USA (US1; Reference Lehman, Lieberman and DixonLehman et al, 2004; US2, Reference Lehman and SteinwachsLehman & Steinwachs, 1998). Six of 24 guidelines addressed mainly medication therapy, but included some other treatment aspects: these guidelines were from France (FR; Reference Kovess, Caroli and DurocherKovess et al, 1994), South Africa (XA; Reference Stein, Seedat and NiehausStein et al, 2000), Spain (ES; Sociedad Española de Psiquiatria, 2000) and the USA (US3, Expert Consensus Panel, 2003; US4, Reference Miller, Chiles and ChilesMiller et al, 1999; US5, Reference Marder, Essock and MillerMarder et al, 2002). Two guidelines addressed mainly psychosocial therapy: these originated in Denmark (DK; Reference Nordentoft, Kelstrup and GardeNordentoft et al, 2001) and the UK (GB2; Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 1998).

Thirteen of 24 guidelines were developed by national psychiatric associations or national boards of physicians, five were developed by health ministries or statutory institutions and six were developed by independent groups of experts.

Methodological quality

The methodological quality of the majority of guidelines was moderate (Table 1). The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline (GB1) had the highest methodological quality according to AGREE and the highest scores in five out of six domains, followed by the second edition of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) guideline (US1) and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists guideline (AU). However, these three guidelines were completely different. The NICE guideline's strength was in its rigour of development and applicability, and its recommendations were evidence-based with a clear description of how evidence was synthesised. There were explicit links between recommendations and supporting evidence, but the reader cannot find usable textbook-like background information quickly. In contrast, the APA guideline's strength was in the clarity of presentation of different options and the available background information. The Australian guideline was methodologically strong in most domains, concise and had a special focus on prodromal symptoms and first episode care.

Most (19) of the 24 guidelines did not include contributions from key stakeholders such as patients or relatives. A systematic literature search with specific inclusion criteria was performed for only seven guidelines. Ten guidelines stated how the evidence was synthesised; however, for only nine guidelines was there an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. In 18 guidelines the majority of the recommendations concerned medication therapy. The average numbers of recommendations per guideline were nine for general management, 26 for medication management, five for psychological therapy and 11 for social therapy or the organisation of mental health services. In only ten of the 24 guidelines were the resources of the respective health system or local systems of care explicitly taken into account in formulating the recommendations. Only three guidelines considered health-economic effects of the treatment options or other cost issues (AU, FI, GB1) and five guidelines referred to particular cultural, ethnic or socioeconomic issues either in diagnostic assessment or treatment planning (AU, DK, GB1, SG, US1). Most guidelines had a text format, and 12 also included algorithms. In 15 guidelines, recommendations were operationalised to some degree, but in nine guidelines it was hard to identify key recommendations.

Only a minority (4 out of 24) had patient versions of the guideline (AU, GB1, SG, ZA). In eight guidelines editorial independence was explicitly stated (AU, FI, NO, GB1, GB2, SG, US1, US2). Three guidelines disclosed pharmaceutical sponsoring for guideline development, but in at least four more cases the organisation responsible for guideline development received pharmaceutical sponsoring and grants. Only six guidelines were reviewed externally by reviewers not involved in the guideline development.

Content analysis of guidelines

We identified some fields with significant agreement among guideline recommendations. However, in other areas, guidelines differed considerably (Table 2). Nine of the 24 guidelines recommended second-generation antipsychotics as first-line therapy in multi-episode psychosis, 13 recommended first-generation or second-generation antipsychotics and one recommended only first-generation drugs. Most guidelines recommended dosages of first-generation antipsychotics between 300 and 1000 mg chlorpromazine equivalents for acute care, but two newer guidelines (AU, NO) recommended dosages between 200 and 400 mg chlorpromazine equivalents. All available guidelines dealing with medication issues recommended clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, with comparable optimal dosages. Whereas most guidelines recommended antipsychotic maintenance treatment to be continued for at least 1 year after a first psychotic episode and for at least 5 years after multiple episodes (with the exception of CA2 and GB1), the recommended dosages for first-generation antipsychotic maintenance treatment varied between 150 and 900 mg chlorpromazine equivalents. In the case of side-effects with first-generation drugs, switching to a second-generation drug was more often recommended than dosage reduction. All guidelines recommended pharmacological antidepressive therapy as first-line treatment of depressive symptoms.

Table 2 Comparison of key recommendations between guidelines

Area of recommendation Practice guideline1
AT AU CA1 CA2 CZ DE DK ES FI FR GB1 GB2 LT LV NL NO SG SI US1 US2 US3 US4 US5 ZA
Medication
    Second-generation antipsychotic as first-line therapy in acute non-first episode + + NR + + NR + + + + +
    Recommended first-generation antipsychotic dosage in acute care, mg CPZeq 200–800 200–400 NR 500–2000 NR 250–1000 NR NR 250–1000 NR 300–1000 NR NR 375–750 250–750 270–1000 200–750 250–750 250–1000 300–1000 350–925 300–1000 NR 300–700
    Recommendation for treatment resistance: clozapine + + + + NR + NR + + NR + NR + + + + + + + + + + + +
    Recommended dosage for clozapine in acute care, mg NR 300–450 NR 300–600 NR NR NR NR 200–600 NR NR NR NR 200–450 200–600 NR NR 400 150–600 200–600 400–600 300–900 NR NR
    Minimum duration of treatment after first episode, years 1 1 1–2 1–2 NR 1–2 NR 2 NR 2 NR NR NR NR 1 2 1 NR >0.5 1 NR NR NR NR
    Minimum duration of treatment after multiple episodes, years 2–5 NR 5 2–5 NR 4–5 NR >5 NR 5 1–2 NR NR NR 5 5 NR NR Indefinite NR NR NR NR NR
    Primary management of side-effects with first-generation antipsychotic
        Dosage reduction + + + NR + + NR + NR NR NR
        Switching to second-generation agent + + + + + NR + + + NR + + + + + NR + NR NR
    Dosage for maintenance therapy with first-generation antipsychotic, mg CPZeq NR 350–400 NR 300–900 NR 300–600 NR NR 150–400 NR NR NR NR 250–500 NR NR <600 NR Individual 300–600 250–750 NR NR 300–600
    Recommendation against antipsychotic polypharmacy + + NR + + + + NR + + NR
    Antidepressants for depressive symptoms + + + + NR + NR + + + + NR + + + + + + + + NR + NR +
Psychosocial interventions
    Recommendations for family support + + + NR NR + + NR + + + + NR NR + + + NR + + NR NR NR NR
    Recommendations for psychoeducational interventions + + + NR NR + + + + NR + NR NR + + + NR + NR NR NR NR NR
    Recommendation for psychological therapy: CBT + NR NR NR + + NR + + + + NR NR + + NR NR + + NR NR NR NR
    Recommendations for systems of vocational rehabilitation + + + NR NR + + NR + NR + NR NR NR + + + NR + + NR NR NR NR
    Recommendations for systems of community treatment + + NR NR + NR + + + + NR NR NR + NR NR + + NR NR NR NR

We found large variations in the type and frequency of psychosocial interventions recommended. A majority of guidelines (14) recommended some kind of family support or family involvement, and half (12) had recommendations for psychoeducational interventions and vocational rehabilitation. However, recommendations concerning psychosocial interventions were generally not detailed. Only six guidelines (AU, DK, FI, GB1, NO, US1) gave background information and detailed recommendations for specific mental health community treatment.

Guideline development and implementation in different countries

Twenty-one of the 122 WPA member organisations we approached (17%) responded to the questionnaire. Responses came from five Asian countries (Azerbaijan, China, Israel, Russia and Turkey), one American country (USA), 13 European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Spain and the UK) and two African countries (Kenya and Uganda). All responses came from presidents or scientific secretaries of national psychiatric associations.

For 16 of these 21 countries, national schizophrenia guidelines for use in that country were available. Most respondents were positive about guideline development; only one country representative in Asia rejected guidelines, owing to concerns about legal exploitation. In four of five Asian countries, in the two African countries as well as in all of the five Eastern European countries, foreign guidelines (primarily American Psychiatric Association, British guidelines, and northern European guidelines) or WHO primary care guidelines had been translated or adopted for national use. In seven of nine countries with national health systems, the health ministry supports, coordinates or regulates guideline development in the field of schizophrenia. In all statutory health insurance systems, but also in some national health systems, national psychiatric associations are the only institutions concerned with schizophrenia guideline development. For the majority of countries (11 of 21), respondents declared that no effort had been made to implement or evaluate guidelines; in these countries guidelines had only been disseminated. In most countries (13 of 21) national guideline development with local adaptation was considered as most important, but international help and comparison were also welcomed (18 of 21). With one exception, all countries would appreciate WPA and/or WHO help in the following fields: definition of standards, access to guidelines, exchange between guideline developers, advice in adaptation and expertise.

The main obstacles for guideline development and use as perceived by the 21 national representatives were lack or shortage of available financial and human resources to develop guidelines (n=7); the need for regular updates (n=6); the academic approach restricting its application (n=4); the lack of consideration of cultural issues (n=4); the lack of financial means to implement treatment recommendations (n=4); the complexity of treatment options (n=3); low adherence rates and lack of physicians’ interest (n=3); changing diagnostic criteria and therapeutic possibilities (n=3); pharmaceutical company power (n=2); the lack of guideline evaluation results (n=2); and the fear of legal obligation (n=2).

DISCUSSION

Methodological quality of guidelines

Our results show that besides their generally moderate rigour of development, many national schizophrenia guidelines were difficult to apply and had a low legitimisation base, as most development processes did not include key stakeholders other than psychiatric experts. Only a minority had additional patient versions, few guidelines were reviewed externally, and the majority of guidelines did not consider available national or local psychiatric care systems, or cultural or socio-economic issues.

We found a remarkable superiority of the NICE schizophrenia guideline with respect to methodological quality. One explanation might be that this guideline was developed as part of a national policy within an established guideline programme adequately resourced by the health authorities.

It is still not clear what guideline quality actually means, and how it can be assessed in an optimal way. With AGREE we used a validated guideline assessment instrument. However, scores relied on how well-documented the guideline development process was (Reference Hayward, Wilson and TunisHayward et al, 1995). It is obvious that the quality of a guideline is not only indicated by its explicit scientific evidence base. Factors that are likely to influence implementation are the guideline's applicability in terms of specificity, affordability and acceptance of recommendations. This was reflected by our survey results, which point to a considerable gap between desire and reality in guideline development and dissemination in many countries. On the one hand, most countries do not have sufficient resources to review the evidence base systematically on their own in order to improve the guideline's methodological quality. On the other hand, simply taking over the scientific evidence from American, European or Australian guidelines would improve neither the resulting recommendations’ validity nor their acceptance. Search criteria, outcome measures, the set of interventions selected and populations included in experimental studies are subject to ethnic and cultural biases and to value judgements. Furthermore, health-economic trade-off decisions may vary according to the resources available in different countries. For example, in countries with marked health inequalities it might be advisable to use both socio-economic and medical evidence for guideline development (Reference Aldrich, Kemp and WilliamsAldrich et al, 2003). In low-income or middle-income countries, it might be more easily achievable to focus on stakeholder involvement, adequate wording and inclusion of local care systems and culture, instead of systematically reviewing the great number of experimental studies available in the literature. The dilemma of culture bias in efficacy studies remains unresolved.

Comparison of recommendations

Most guidelines gave more detailed recommendations in the field of medication treatment than in the field of psychosocial therapy. Antipsychotic medication choice was a major concern, with the exception of two documents dealing primarily with psychosocial issues (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, 1998; Reference Nordentoft, Kelstrup and GardeNordentoft et al, 2001). Whereas in some fields recommendations were quite similar among guidelines (clozapine in case of treatment resistance, antidepressant use and duration of long-term antipsychotic treatment), others differed widely (management of side-effects, dosage recommendations and antipsychotic polypharmacy). In the past decade an increasing number of studies have compared second-generation antipsychotics with first-generation antipsychotics. There have been activities all over the world, which promote their use despite higher short-term costs, e.g. the World Psychiatric Association's update on second-generation antipsychotics (Reference Sartorius, Fleischhacker and GjerrisSartorius et al, 2003). Our results show that the second-generation agents have found their way into most schizophrenia guidelines, both as first-line therapy and as a treatment option in the case of side-effects with first-generation drugs. However, although health-economic data from developed countries show lower total costs of treatment with second-generation drugs, through a reduction of in-patient treatment despite higher short-term medication costs (Reference Hamilton, Revicki and EdgellHamilton et al, 1999), it is far from clear if this holds true for less developed countries. In countries with extreme shortage of resources, substituting the newer medications might cut investment in psychosocial treatments if the total amount of money provided by government for the treatment of mental disorders did not increase.

In contrast to the advice on psychotropic medication, recommendations for psychosocial treatment of schizophrenia were very general and non-specific in many cases. With the exception of one American guideline (US1; Reference Lehman, Lieberman and DixonLehman et al, 2004), those with detailed recommendations on psychosocial treatments came from countries with national health systems. That non-drug treatments were considered to a lesser degree may be due to the medical perspective of the guideline developers, their main target group being psychiatrists whose focus is often drug treatment, or due to pharmaceutical company support for the guideline development.

Guideline content analysis suggested that in many instances a few reference guidelines might have been used as primers for the others. Among those putative reference guidelines are the Patient Outcome Research Team (PORT) recommendations (Lehman et al, 1998) and the APA guideline (American Psychiatric Association, 1997).

Problems of worldwide schizophrenia guideline surveys

The methods we used to identify relevant schizophrenia guidelines do not guarantee that a representative sample was included. Most of the guidelines were developed in Europe, the USA or Australia. Many representatives of national organisations did not reply to our survey request, preventing unpublished guidelines from these countries being included. In particular, we could find few guidelines from less developed countries. No Latin American country was included. This limits the generalisability of our survey results in a comparable manner to the cultural biases in treatment efficacy studies, most of which have been carried out in the rich countries of Europe or North America. Future guideline surveys might use other sources to identify relevant documents (particularly in less affluent countries) such as other national or regional psychiatric organisations or national guideline experts, in addition to WPA representatives, medical databases and registered national guideline programmes. Similarly, the responses of psychiatric associations might not be representative of the whole situation in the different countries. The answers remain as opinions, however, of organisations authorised to represent a group of physicians.

This comparison did not assess whether guidelines used the available evidence adequately in formulating key recommendations. Neither evaluation of the methodological quality nor comparison of guideline statements in certain areas permits judgement about the extent to which guidelines’ recommendations improved psychiatric care in a particular region.

The originality of our study lies in its systematic comparison of nationally used schizophrenia guidelines, including those regarded as relevant by key representatives of the countries’ psychiatric communities. Most guideline comparisons in the field of mental health have used published or easily accessible guidelines, restricting the results more narrowly to Western European or North American regions (Reference Milner and ValensteinMilner & Valenstein, 2002).

Implications for future guideline development

Developing evidence-based mental health guidelines all over the world brings about several challenges. Systematic literature reviews are expensive and time-consuming. Furthermore, if there are conflicting interpretations of the results of different reviews, decision rules must be established, professional, methodological and consensus judgements must be made and a variety of meetings must be organised. The availability of meta-analyses or systematic reviews may lessen the need to assess the evidence base for each newly developed guideline. However, a major challenge will be the development of ethical clinical standards as well as evidence-based guidelines that are both affordable and acceptable in different countries (Reference RutzRutz, 2003). Besides setting up national mental health programmes, the improvement of national disorder-specific mental health guidelines could be of considerable importance in changing mental health treatment and professional performance. As schizophrenia shows a highly variable course in different countries, possibly due to cultural influences (Reference Jablensky, Sartorius and ErnbergJablensky et al, 1992), cross-cultural differences must also be reflected in schizophrenia guidelines. If there is a shortage of time or resources to develop guidelines in some countries, an internationally acceptable and value-free core set of recommendations could be developed as a basis for national or local guideline elaboration. This could be facilitated by independent and international organisations such as the WHO and the WPA. These core recommendations could then be used for adaptation to different cultural, economic and other backgrounds in collaboration with stakeholders of the respective countries and regions. This approach could lead to a reduction of pharmaceutical company sponsorship for national guideline development programmes, particularly in the less affluent countries, provided that WHO or WPA recommendations are truly independent. In addition to this, guideline dissemination and implementation strategies need to be developed within individual countries. Despite the importance of guideline implementation programmes, there is an imperfect evidence base to support specific tools (Reference Grimshaw, Thomas and MaclennanGrimshaw et al, 2004).

Clinical Implications and Limitations

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

  1. The methodological quality of most schizophrenia practice guidelines is at best moderate.

  2. Recommendations for pharmacotherapy are similar among the guidelines surveyed, but those for psychosocial treatment are general and non-specific in many cases.

  3. An independent international group could develop a core set of schizophrenia treatment recommendations which could be adapted to different cultural, economic and other backgrounds in collaboration with stakeholders in different countries.

LIMITATIONS

  1. Reviewed guidelines may not be representative of the situation in different countries.

  2. The influence of guidelines on clinical practice could not be assessed.

  3. The respondents to the guideline survey might not have given comprehensive information about guideline issues in their respective countries.

Acknowledgements

This work was financed by the German Society of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Nervous Diseases (DGPPN) and the German Research Network on Schizophrenia within a guideline programme (S.W.).

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

WG. is one of the editors of the German schizophrenia guideline (from 1998); J. M. is the Chairman of the US Steering Committee on Practice Guidelines. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

References

AGREE Collaboration (2003) Development and validation of an international appraisal instrument for assessing the quality of clinical practice guidelines: the AGREE project. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12, 1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, R., Kemp, L., Williams, J. S., et al (2003) Using socioeconomic evidence in clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 327, 12831285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association (1997) Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apiquian, R., Fresan, A., Fuente-Sandoval, C., et al (2004) Survey on schizophrenia treatment in Mexico: perception and antipsychotic prescription patterns. Biomed Central Psychiatry, 4, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buitelaar, J. K., van Ewijk, W. M., Harms, H. H., et al (1998) Antipsychoticagebruik bij Schizofrene Psychosen. Amsterdam: Nederlands Vereiniging voor Psychiatrie.Google Scholar
Canadian Psychiatric Association (1999) Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43 (suppl. 2), 25S40S.Google Scholar
Colléage des Médecins du Québec (1999) Treating Schizophrenia. http://www.cmq.org/uploadedFiles/lignestraitementschizophrenieang99.pdf Google Scholar
Expert Consensus Panel (2003) Expert consensus guideline series. Optimizing pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64 (suppl. 12), 297.Google Scholar
Gaebel, W. Falkai, P. (eds) (1998) Behandlungsleitlinie Schizophrenie. Darmstadt: Steinkopff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, D., Sharp, D. & Nanayakkara, K. (1995) The field trial of the mental disorders section of ICD-10 designed for primary care (ICD10-PHC) in England. Family Practice, 12, 466473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. M., Thomas, R. E., Maclennan, G., et al (2004) Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technology Assessment, 8, 172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, S. H., Revicki, D. A., Edgell, E. T., et al (1999) Clinical and economic outcomes of olanzapine compared with haloperidol for schizophrenia. Results from a randomised clinical trial. Pharmacoeconomics, 15, 469480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayward, R. S., Wilson, M. C., Tunis, S. R., et al (1995) Users' guides to the medical literature. VIII. How to use clinical practice guidelines. A. Are the recommendations valid? The Evidence Based Medicine Work Group. JAMA, 274, 570574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablensky, A., Sartorius, N., Ernberg, G., et al (1992) Schizophrenia: manifestations, incidence and course in different cultures. A World Health Organization ten-country study. Psychological Medicine Monograph Supplement, 20, 197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katschnig, H., Donat, H., Fleischhacker, W. W., et al (2002) 4x8 Empfehlungen zur Behandlung von Schizophrenie. Linz: Edition Pro Mente.Google Scholar
Kovess, V., Caroli, F., Durocher, A., et al (1994) Stratégies Thérapeutiques á Long Terme dans les Psychoses Schizophréniques. Paris: Agence National d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé, Edition Frison-Roche.Google Scholar
Latvijas Psihiatru Asiciacijas (2001) Sizofrenijas Racionalas Farmakoterpijas Rekomendacijas zalu legades Kompensacijas Sistema. Rija: Latvian Psychiatric Society.Google Scholar
Lehman, A. F. & Steinwachs, D. M. (1998) Transllating research into practice: the Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment recommendations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24, 110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehman, A. F., Lieberman, J. A., Dixon, L. B., et al (2004) Practice guideline for the treatment of patients with schizophrenia, second edition. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, I56.Google ScholarPubMed
Libiger, J. (1999) Akutní psychotická epizoda. In Psychiatrie. Doporucnene Postupy Psychiatrické Pécne (Psychiatry, Appropriate Psychiatric Care) (ed. Raboch, J.). Prague: Galen. http://www.cls.cz/dp/2002/t285.rtf Google Scholar
Lietuvos Respublikos Sveikatos Apsaugos Ministro (2002) Sizofrenijos ir Afektiniu Sutrikiku Gydymo Metodika. Vilnius: Lithuanian Ministry of Health.Google Scholar
Marder, S. R., Essock, S. M., Miller, A. L., et al (2002) The Mount Sinai conference on the pharmacotherapy of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28, 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGorry, P., Killackey, E., Elkins, K., et al (2003) Summary Australasian and New Zealand clinical practice guideline for the treatment of schizophrenia 2003. Australasian Psychiatry, 11, 136147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, J. S. (2002) Usefulness and limitations of treatment of guidelines in psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 1, 186189.Google Scholar
Miller, A. L., Chiles, J. A., Chiles, J. K., et al (1999) The Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) schizophrenia algorithms. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 60, 649657.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milner, K. K. & Valenstein, M. (2002) A comparison of guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Services, 53, 888890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, C. J. L. & Lopez, A. D. (eds) (1996) The Global Burden of Disease. A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Cambridge, MA: Harvard School of Public Health.Google Scholar
National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2002) Clinical Guideline I. Schizophrenia: Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary and Secondary Care. London: NICE.Google Scholar
Nordentoft, M., Kelstrup, A., Garde, K., et al (2001) God Socialpsykiatrisk Standard i Behandling of Unge og Voksne Med Skizofreni. Denmark: Dansk Psykiatrisk Selskab. (http://www.dadlnet.dk/klaringsrapporter/2001-06/2001-06.htm).Google Scholar
Patel, V. & Andrade, C. (2003) Pharmacological treatment of severe psychiatric disorders in the developing world: lessons from India. CNS Drugs, 17, 10711080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutz, W. (2003) The European WHO mental health programme and the World Health Report 2001: input and implications. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 7374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salokangas, R. K. R. (ed.) (2001) Skitsofrenia. Käypä Hoito-Suositus. Duodecim, 117, 26402657. (http://www.duodecim.fi/kh).Google Scholar
Sartorius, N., Fleischhacker, W. W., Gjerris, A., et al (2003) The usefulness and use of second-generation antipsychotic medications – an update. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16, S1S44.Google Scholar
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (1998) Psychosocial Interventions in the Management of Schizophrenia. Edinburgh: SIGN (http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/sign/index.html).Google Scholar
Singapore Ministry of Health (2003) Schizophrenia. Clinical Practice Guideline. Singapore: Ministry of Health (http://www.moh.gov.sg/cmaweb/attachments/publication/281cda5elb4e/cpg-schizophrenia.pdf).Google Scholar
Sociedad Espanola de Psiquiatria (2000) Consenso Espahol de Expertos para Recomendaciónde Actuación en el Tratamiento de la Esquizofrenia. Madrid: Sociedad Espanola de Psiquiatria (http://sepsiq.org/Pub/ExpEsq/ExpEsq-1.pdf).Google Scholar
Statens Helsetilsyn (2003) Schizofreni. Kliniske Retningslinjer for Utredning og Behandling. Oslo: Norwegian Psychiatric Association and Health Ministry Google Scholar
Stein, D. J., Seedat, S., Niehaus, D. J. H., et al (2000) Psychiatric Medications in Primary Care: Algorithms and Guidelines. Cape Town: University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1996) Diagnostic and Management Guidelines for Mental Disorders in Primary Care: ICD-10 Chapter V Primary Care Version. Göttingen: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Zmitek, A., Tavcar, R., Kocmur, M., et al (2000) Shizofrenija. Priporocila in Smernice za zdradvljenje z zdravili. Ljubljana: Psychiatric Collegium.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Guideline identification and survey response (WPA, World Psychiatric Association).

Figure 1

Table 1 Methodological quality of practice guidelines

Figure 2

Table 2 Comparison of key recommendations between guidelines

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
164
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Schizophrenia practice guidelines: International survey and comparison
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Schizophrenia practice guidelines: International survey and comparison
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Schizophrenia practice guidelines: International survey and comparison
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *