(NR326 Mental Health NursingRUA Scholarly

(
NR326
Mental
Health
Nursing
RUA:
Scholarly
Article
Review
Guidelines
)Purpose
The student will review, summarize, and critique a scholarly
article related to a mental health topic.
Course outcomes: This assignment enables the student to meet
the following course outcomes.
(CO 4) Utilize critical thinking skills in clinical decision-
making and implementation of the nursing process for
psychiatric/mental health clients. (PO 4)
(CO 5) Utilize available resources to meet self-identified goals
for personal, professional, and educational development
appropriate to the mental health setting. (PO 5)
(CO 7) Examine moral, ethical, legal, and professional
standards and principles as a basis for clinical decision-making.
(PO 6)
(CO 9) Utilize research findings as a basis for the development
of a group leadership experience. (PO 8)

Due date: Your faculty member will inform you when this
assignment is due. The Late Assignment Policy applies to this
assignment.
Total points possible: 100 pointsPreparing the assignment
1) Follow these guidelines when completing this assignment.
Speak with your faculty member if you have questions.
a. Select a scholarly nursing or research article, published
within the last five years, related to mental health nursing. The
content of the article must relate to evidence-based practice.
· You may need to evaluate several articles to find one that is
appropriate.
b. Ensure that no other member of your clinical group chooses
the same article, then submit your choice for faculty approval.
c. The submitted assignment should be 2-3 pages in length,
excluding the title and reference pages.
2) Include the following sections (detailed criteria listed below
and in the Grading Rubric must match exactly).
a. Introduction (10 points/10%)
· Establishes purpose of the paper
· Captures attention of the reader
b. Article Summary (30 points/30%)
· Statistics to support significance of the topic to mental health
care
· Key points of the article
· Key evidence presented
· Examples of how the evidence can be incorporated into your
nursing practice
c. Article Critique (30 points/30%)
· Present strengths of the article
· Present weaknesses of the article
· Discuss if you would/would not recommend this article to a
colleague
d. Conclusion (15 points/15%)
· Provides analysis or synthesis of information within the body
of the text
· Supported by ides presented in the body of the paper

· Is clearly written
e. Article Selection and Approval (5 points/5%)
· Current (published in last 5 years)
· Relevant to mental health care
· Not used by another student within the clinical group
· Submitted and approved as directed by instructor
f. APA format and Writing Mechanics (10 points/10%)
NR326 Mental Health Nursing
RUA: Scholarly Article Review Guidelines
NR326 Mental Health Nursing
RUA: Scholarly Article Review Guidelines
NR326_RUA_Scholarly_Article_Review_V4b_FINAL_MAY21
1
· Correct use of standard English grammar and sentence
structure
· No spelling or typographical errors
· Document includes title and reference pages
· Citations in the text and reference page
For writing assistance (APA, formatting, or grammar) visit the
APA Citation and Writing page in the online library.
Please note that your instructor may provide you with additional
assessments in any form to determine that you fully understand
the concepts learned in the review module.
Grading Rubric Criteria are met when the student’s application
of knowledge demonstrates achievement of the outcomes for
this assignment.
Assignment Section and Required Criteria
(Points possible/% of total points available)

Highest Level of Performance
High Level of Performance
Satisfactory Level of Performance
Unsatisfactory Level of Performance
Section not present in paper
Introduction
(10 points/10%)
10 points
8 points
0 points
Required criteria
1. Establishes purpose of the paper
2. Captures attention of the reader
Includes 2 requirements for section.
Includes 1 requirement for section.
No requirements for this section presented.
Article Summary
(30 points/30%)
30 points
25 points
24 points
11 points
0 points
Required criteria
1. Statistics to support significance of the topic to mental health
care
2. Key points of the article
3. Key evidence presented
4. Examples of how the evidence can be incorporated into your
nursing practice
Article Critique

(30 points/30%)
30 points
25 points
11 points
0 points
Required criteria
1. Present strengths of the article
2. Present weaknesses of the article
3. Discuss if you would/would not recommend this article to a
colleague
Conclusion
(15 points/15%)
15 points
11 points
6 points
0 points
1. Provides analysis or synthesis of information within the body
of the text
2. Supported by ides presented in the body of the paper
3. Is clearly written
Article Selection and Approval
(5 points/5%)
5 points
4 points
3 points
2 points
0 points
1. Current (published in last 5 years)

2. Relevant to mental health care
Includes 4
Includes 3
Includes 2
Includes 1
No requirements for
(
NR326
Mental
Health
Nursing
RUA:
Scholarly
Article
Review
Guidelines
)
NR326_RUA_Scholarly_Article_Review_V4b_FINAL_MAY21
1
3. Not used by another student within the clinical group
4. Submitted and approved as directed by instructor
requirements for section.
requirement for section.
this section presented.
APA Format and Writing Mechanics
(10 points/10%)

10 points
8 points
7 points
4 points
0 points
1. Correct use of standard English grammar and sentence
structure
2. No spelling or typographical errors
3. Document includes title and reference pages
4. Citations in the text and reference page
Total Points Possible = 100 points
119© NAPICU 2016
Journal of Psychiatric
Intensive Care
Journal of Psychiatric Intensive Care, 12 (2): 119–127
doi:10.20299/jpi.2016.009
Received 15 July 2015 | Accepted 28 January 2016
© NAPICU 2016
REVIEW ARTICLE
The use of a token economy for
behaviour and symptom management

in adult psychiatric inpatients: a critical
review of the literature
Krista Glowacki, Grace Warner, Cathy White
School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Canada
Correspondence to: Krista Glowacki, School of Occupational
Therapy, Forrest
Building, PO Box 15000 Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2,
Canada;
[email protected]
Background: A token economy is a behavioural modification
and reward
based intervention in which tokens are given for predefined
terms. This
review aims to answer the question: What is the effectiveness of
the use of
a token economy for the reduction of negative behaviours and
symptoms
in adult psychiatric inpatients?
Method: A systematic review of studies using a token economy
for adults
with mental illness, within an inpatient setting was undertaken
for the
period 1999–2013. References cited in relevant literature were
also
examined.
Results: The Oxford CEBM Levels of evidence was used to
determine
quality. Grade A and B recommended studies were included in
the review.
A total of seven studies were included in the analysis. All of the
studies
showed the effectiveness of a token economy for reducing
negative

behaviours and symptoms in the short-term.
Conclusions: The use of a token economy, on the basis of
reward and
encouragement, should be considered within inpatient
psychiatric settings.
The literature shows the effectiveness on behavioural changes
in reduction
of violence and aggression. The literature on negative symptom
reduction
is scarce and cannot be generalised. There is no evidence to
support the
transfer outside of an inpatient/secure setting.
Key words: token economy; psychiatric inpatient; symptom
manage-
ment; behaviour management
Financial support: This research received no specific grant from
any funding agency,
commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of interest: None.
120 © NAPICU 2016
GLOWACKI ET AL.
Introduction
With the shift toward community-based mental health
care, inpatient psychiatry units are seeing an increase in
acuity of the patients who come through their doors (Bow -
ers, 2005). Common reasons for admission include danger
to self or others, severe mental disorder such as psychosis,
and extreme behaviours such as agitation, mania,

unpredictability, confusion, disorientation, emotional
lability, distress/tears, acting out and delusions (Bowers,
2005). Patients may exhibit negative symptoms such as
slow and superficial responses, social withdrawal, and
lack of energy (Hopko et al. 2003; Gholipour et al. 2012),
or negative behaviours, including agitation and aggres-
sion particularly toward staff members (Lepage et al.
2003; Park & Lee, 2012). Thus, the creation of a safe and
secure environment becomes paramount.
As Bowers (2005) discussed, ongoing risk assessment
and monitoring and observation of the patients are routine
aspects of the care, which may lead to the need to employ
skills in negotiation, persuasion, coaxing, distraction and
de-escalation. When patients do escalate, disrupting the
milieu and placing themselves and/or others at risk, be-
haviour management strategies such as exerting physical
control, restraints and coercive use of medications may be
employed to mediate the behaviour. One approach to
behaviour modification that has received limited recent
attention in the literature is the use of a token economy.
Background
A token economy, developed for use within inpatient
psychiatry settings, is a behaviour modification interven-
tion that can be used to shape behaviours including acquir-
ing new skills, reducing undesired behaviours, increasing
treatment compliance, and improving overall manage-
ment of patients on psychiatry units (LePage et al. 2003;
McMonagle & Sultana, 2000). This intervention is based
on operant conditioning. Patients can earn ‘tokens’ which
have no innate value, and can exchange them for some-
thing that does have value to them, such as goods, services
or privileges in the facility when they exhibit a desired
behaviour (Seegert, 2003; McMonagle & Sultana, 2000).

The first principle of the token economy is the law of cause
and effect based on the idea that reinforcement is the most
effective means in changing behaviour. The second princi -
ple is the law of contiguity association, in that two events
will be associated with one another if they happen together
(Dickerson et al. 2005; McMonagle & Sultana, 2000). In
the original economy, both reward and punishment tech-
niques could be implemented (Kreyenbuhl et al. 2010).
Punishment is now viewed as inappropriate within a
healthcare setting, causing the decline of this intervention.
Punishment is considered a negative consequence, includ-
ing the removal of tokens. There are common mis-
conceptions about all token economies, including the
belief that the intervention is abusive, it does not foster
individual treatment, and does not generalise. These mis-
conceptions prevail among health care practitioners and
further contribute to its lack of use (LePage et al. 2003).
A token economy can facilitate improvement in behav-
iour and function. It is an economically friendly
intervention, and can be beneficial in facilities with lim-
ited resources (LePage, 1999; Seegert, 2003; Coelho et al.
2008; Comaty et al. 2001; McMonagle & Sultana, 2000;
Kreyenbuhl et al. 2010). It is relatively simple in its overall
conceptualisation for those involved, and is beneficial for
reducing challenging or disruptive behaviours (LePage,
1999; Coelho et al. 2008). Token economies can be used to
increase functioning and to foster recovery, a key focus of
today’s mental health care (Hassell, 2009).
A systematic review of the use of token economies was
published in 2000, analysing literature up to 1999
(McMonagle & Sultana, 2000). McMonagle & Sultana
(2000) concluded by recommending the token economy
as a cost-effective alternative to psychosocial interven-

tions in institutions with financial struggles. The article
also recommends further in-depth research in a controlled
setting using randomised trials to further explore effec-
tiveness. This systematic review of the literature examines
current research (1999–2013) on the use of a current token
economy in adult inpatient psychiatric settings. The ques-
tion guiding the review is: What is the effectiveness of the
use of a token economy for the reduction of negative
behaviours and symptoms in adult psychiatric inpatients?
Method
Inclusion criteria
Types of studies. Peer reviewed articles including:
randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies,
retrospective cohort studies and pre–post design.
Types of participants. Adults ages 18 and older admitted
to a psychiatric facility as an inpatient in a forensic, acute,
or rehabilitation unit, with a mental health disorder as
identified in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorder, 5th Edition (DSMV).
Types of interventions. Intervention included a token
economy in which tokens or vouchers are given as rewards
for behaviour specified prior to entering the programme/
economy. Rewards may be given for positive behaviour or
abstinence of negative behaviour. The goal is to achieve
behavioural change by means of use of non-monetary and
non-consumable tokens, which can be exchanged for a
variety of goods, privileges or services in the facility.
121© NAPICU 2016

A TOKEN ECONOMY
Types of outcome measures. To determine if the therapy is
effective, there must be a reduction in one of the two
identified outcomes after the implementation of the inter -
vention. The identified outcomes are negative behaviours
or negative symptoms. Negative behaviours include: vio-
lence, aggression, and drug abuse. Negative symptoms
include: flat affect, lack of pleasure in life, lack of partici -
pation, lack of ability to begin and sustain activities, and
lack of socialisation and interaction with others. Out-
comes can be measured by observation data, frequency
data, incident reports, patient charts, group participation
numbers/percentages and number of positive urine sam-
ples. Statistical information was extracted from each study
inclusive of average test scores and standard deviation,
statistical significance and effect size in changes or differ -
ences.
Search strategy
Electronic searches were undertaken, limiting results to
the English language and publication in the period 1999–
2013 (due to the McMonagle & Sultana (2000) review
including research prior to 1999). The databases CINAHL,
EMBASE, OTseeker, PubMed, PsycInfo and Google
Scholar were used. The search terms used in CINAHL
(EBSCOhost) were: (1) “token economy” OR (tokens OR
vouchers) and psychiatric OR (mental* N2 (health OR ill*
OR disorder*)) and inpatient* OR hospital* OR ward*
OR unit OR patient* OR forensic*; (2) “token economy”
OR tokens OR vouchers and psychiatric OR mental*
NEAR/2 (health OR ill* OR disorder*) and inpatient* OR
hospital* OR ward* OR unit OR patient* OR forensic* and

behavi* OR violen* OR aggressi* OR negative; (3) “To-
ken economy” and adult; (4) “Token economy” and
psychiatric OR (mental* N2 (health OR ill* OR disor-
der*)); (5) Voucher-based and mental health. Other similar
search terms were used in the other databases. An exami-
nation of references cited in relevant literature was also
undertaken.
Exclusion criteria
Research done before 1999, participants under the age of
18, outpatient settings, and diagnoses not in the DSMV
were excluded. Specific study types not included were:
systematic reviews, open forum blogs, hospital unit re-
views and descriptive articles of intervention without a
measureable outcome (see Fig. 1).
Data extraction & quality review
Articles were identified through electronic searches and
abstracts were reviewed. Those that did not meet the
inclusion criteria were then excluded. Of the abstract
reviews, 20 articles were identified and the full manuscripts
Identified through
searching database:
n = 342
Identified through

examination of
references:
n = 3
Excluded after
abstract review:
n = 325
Full-text articles assessed
for eligibility:
n = 20
Included after
manuscript review:
n = 7
Excluded after manuscript review: n = 13
Reasons: Population not inpatients: n = 4
Study design: n = 7
Outcome measured not negative behaviour change: n = 1
Full text not accessible: n = 1
Fig. 1. Articles included and excluded.

122 © NAPICU 2016
GLOWACKI ET AL.
of the papers were read and assessed for quality and
eligibility. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medi-
cine Levels of Evidence was used to determine quality,
and only grade A and B studies were included in the review
(OCEBM, 2009). Grade A studies are considered the
highest quality and grade B studies are the second highest
quality. After the full manuscript reviews, 13 were ex-
cluded, leaving 7 studies to be included in the systematic
review. Figure 1 indicates reasons why studies were ex-
cluded.
Results
Data were extracted from seven studies and compared to
determine the effectiveness of a token economy (Table 1).
Each study included a rewards and incentive based token
economy for adults within an inpatient psychiatry setting.
Of the seven studies, three were randomised controlled
trials, one was a prospective cohort, two were pre–post
designs and one was a retrospective cohort. All of these
studies were categorised using the OCEBM (2009) to
determine study quality.
The studies classified as grade A of the OCEBM (2009)
were the three randomised controlled trials (Hopko et al.
2003; Gholipour et al. 2012; Park & Lee, 2012).
Randomisation methods were difficult to assess as entire
inpatient units were used. Two of the studies looked only at
male units and were done outside of North America

(Gholipour et al. 2012; Park & Lee, 2012), and in one, all
males on the unit were diagnosed with schizophrenia
(Gholipour et al. 2012). Thus, cultural and gender differ-
ences should be considered and the results be used with
caution to generalise to North American culture and prac-
tice, and to mixed units. Two of the studies had small
sample sizes (Hopko et al. 2003; Gholipour et al. 2012).
The next grade of studies, level B of the OCEBM (2009),
were pre–post designs and prospective cohorts (LePage,
1999; Comaty et al. 2001; LePage et al. 2003). Two of the
studies only analysed one unit of a hospital, limiting the
generalisation, and there was no control group as all patients
in the unit participated in the token economy (LePage,
1999; LePage et al. 2003). Lastly, a retrospective study,
also grade B of the OCEBM (2009) was used (Hassell,
2009). This included an analysis of medical records and no
power analysis was used to determine if sample size was
adequate. In the same study various healthcare profession-
als implemented the token economy and no information
was given on inter-relater reliability or training. It should
also be noted that in all of the studies the intervention was
combined with individualised pharmacological treatment.
The effect of interventions on outcomes
The effectiveness of the intervention being analysed will
be reported as a narrative synthesis. This part will be
separated into two sections. The first will describe the
effectiveness of the intervention on negative behaviours,
and the second will describe the effectiveness on negative
symptoms.
Behaviour. Behavioural change was an outcome meas-
ured in five of the studies (LePage, 1999; Comaty et al.
2001; LePage et al. 2003; Hassell, 2009; Park & Lee,

2012). These studies included violent and aggressive be-
haviour in a physical or non-physical manner that could
harm or threaten other individuals or themselves, mainly
reported as ‘incidents’. All of the studies’ findings support
the efficacy of the token economy for reducing negative
behaviours and unit incidents related to these behaviours
on inpatient psychiatric units. It should be noted that one
study did not have a control, so improvements in behav-
iour and function cannot be attributed to the token economy
alone (Hassell, 2009). Further, one study and its results
provides data to support the positive long-term impact a
token economy can have on the safety and function of an
acute care unit (LePage et al. 2003).
Negative symptoms. The effect of the intervention on
negative symptoms was examined in two studies (Hopko
et al. 2003; Gholipour et al. 2012). The findings from both
studies support the efficacy of the token economy for
negative symptom reduction in an inpatient setting. How-
ever, the study by Hopko et al. (2003) only included
inpatients diagnosed with depression, and the study by
Gholipour et al. (2012) only included males with schizo-
phrenia. See Table 1 for a summary of the outcomes,
results, and the statistical data from each study.
Discussion
This systematic review supports the efficacy of a token
economy for reducing negative behaviours in adults with
mental health illness in an inpatient psychiatry setting. All
five of the studies analysing behavioural change showed
statistical significance in the reduction of negative behav-
iours. While the literature reviewed on the efficacy of the
economy for reducing negative symptoms supported the
use of the intervention, the number of studies was limited,
providing insufficient evidence to support its use. Further,

the symptom reduction studies only targeted one diagno-
sis, not representative of most psychiatric inpatient units.
The research on symptom reduction alone is scarce, and
this outcome measure needs to be explored further. All of
the studies looked at the effects within an inpatient setting,
and the regime of hospital units is important to con-
sider. This includes structure, schedules, expectations and
staff. None of the studies were able to look at the direct
effects on behaviour or symptoms outside of an inpatient
setting, so this is an important caution if considering use of
123© NAPICU 2016
A TOKEN ECONOMY
Ta
b
le
1
.
D
a
ta
e
xt
ra
ct
e
d

f
ro
m
s
e
ve
n
s
tu
d
ie
s
o
n
t
h
e
u
se
o
f
a
t
o
ke
n
e

co
n
o
m
y
C
o
m
a
ty
e
t
a
l.
2
0
0
1
G
h
o
li
p
o
u
r

e
t
a
l.
2
0
1
2
H
a
s
s
e
ll
, 2
0
0
9
H
o
p
k
o
e
t
a
l.

2
0
0
3
L
e
P
a
g
e
, 1
9
9
9
L
e
P
a
g
e
e
t
a
l.
2
0
0

3
P
a
rk
&
L
e
e
, 2
0
1
2
O
b
je
c
ti
v
e
(s
)
1
. T
o
c
o

m
p
a
re
a
n
d
To
c
o
m
p
a
re
t
h
e
e
ff
e
ct
-
1
. T
o
in

ve
st
ig
a
te
d
iff
e
r-
To
e
xa
m
in
e
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
-
To
e
va
lu

a
te
t
h
e
im
p
a
ct
1
.
To
e
xp
a
n
d
o
n
t
h
e
To
e
xa
m

in
e
th
e
e
ff
e
ct
-
a
n
a
ly
se
d
a
ta
o
f
th
o
se
iv
e
n
e
ss

o
f
e
xe
rc
is
e
e
n
ce
s
b
e
tw
e
e
n
n
e
ss
o
f
b
ri
e
f
B
A

T
D
o
f
a
t
o
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
in
p
re
vi
o
u
s
fin
d
in
g
s

o
f
iv
e
n
e
ss
o
f
th
e
S
T
T
E
w
h
o
c
o
m
p
le
te
d
t
h

e
a
n
d
t
o
ke
n
-b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
w
ith
s
e
ri

o
u
s
co
m
p
a
re
d
t
o
S
P.
a
n
a
cu
te
p
sy
ch
ia
tr
ic
L
e
P

a
g
e
(
1
9
9
9
)
o
f
o
n
v
io
le
n
t
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
p
ro

g
ra
m
m
e
a
n
d
t
h
o
se
th
e
ra
p
y
o
n
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
m

e
n
ta
l i
lln
e
ss
a
n
d
u
n
it
o
n
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
re
d
u
ce
d
le

ve
ls
o
f
a
m
o
n
g
p
sy
ch
ia
tr
ic
w
h
o
d
id
n
o
t.
sy
m

p
to
m
s
in
a
d
u
lts
d
u
a
lly
d
ia
g
n
o
se
d
e
ve
n
ts
.
a

g
g
re
ss
io
n
f
ro
m
a
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
.
2
. T
o
d
e
te
rm
in
e

t
h
e
w
ith
s
ch
iz
o
p
h
re
n
ia
.
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
.
to
ke
n
e

co
n
o
m
y.
e
ff
e
ct
iv
e
n
e
ss
o
f
th
e
2
. T
o
b
e
tt
e
r
u
n
d

e
rs
ta
n
d
2
.
To
c
o
m
p
a
re
t
h
e
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
f
o

r
th
o
se
th
e
in
flu
e
n
ce
o
f
a
t
o
ke
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
ss

a
u
lts
w
h
o
c
o
m
p
le
te
d
t
h
e
e
co
n
o
m
y
p
ro
g
ra
m

m
e
o
n
a
u
n
it
1
2
m
o
n
th
s
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
p
o
st
-

o
n
f
u
n
ct
io
n
in
g
a
ft
e
r
b
e
fo
re
t
h
e
im
p
le
m
e
n
t-

d
is
ch
a
rg
e
.
h
o
sp
ita
l d
is
ch
a
rg
e
.
a
tio
n
o
f
a
t
o

ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
to
t
h
e
2
4
m
o
n
th
s
a
ft
e
r
im
p
le
m

-
e
n
ta
tio
n
o
f
a
t
o
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y.
D
e
s
ig
n
P
ro
s

p
e
c
ti
v
e
c
o
h
o
rt
R
a
n
d
o
m
is
e
d
R
e
tr
o
s
p

e
c
ti
v
e
R
a
n
d
o
m
is
e
d
P
re
–
p
o
s
t
d
e
s
ig

n
. T
w
o
P
re
–
p
o
s
t d
e
s
ig
n
.
R
a
n
d
o
m
is
e
d

d
e
s
ig
n
a
n
a
ly
si
n
g
d
a
ta
c
o
n
tr
o
ll
e
d
t
ri

a
l
w
ith
c
o
h
o
rt
s
tu
d
y
a
n
a
ly
si
n
g
c
o
n
tr
o
ll

e
d
t
ri
a
l
co
m
-
fo
u
r-
m
o
n
th
p
e
ri
o
d
s
D
a
ta
w
a

s
a
n
a
ly
se
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
tr
o
ll
e
d
tr
ia
l.
co
m
p
a
ri
n

g
a
P
D
g
ro
u
p,
tw
o
in
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
g
ro
u
p
s
d
a
ta
f

ro
m
m
e
d
ic
a
l
p
a
ri
n
g
t
w
o
in
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
w
e
re

a
ss
e
ss
e
d
. T
h
e
1
2
m
o
n
th
s
p
re
-i
m
p
le
-
P
a

rt
ic
ip
a
n
ts
w
e
re
a
B
D
g
ro
u
p
a
n
d
a
(t
o
ke
n
t
h
e

ra
p
y
o
r
re
co
rd
s
o
f
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
g
ro
u
p
s:
B
A
T

D
,
a
n
d
S
P.
fir
st
w
a
s
w
ith
o
u
t
th
e
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
o
f

th
e
t
o
ke
n
e
ith
e
r
in
a
n
e
xp
e
ri
-
g
ro
u
p
w
h
o
d

id
n
o
t
co
m
-
e
xe
rc
is
e
)
a
n
d
o
n
e
u
n
d
e
rg
o
in

g
t
h
e
P
IP
.
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
a
n
d
e
co
n
o
m
y
a
n
d

a
g
a
in
in
m
e
n
ta
l g
ro
u
p
in
vo
lv
e
d
p
le
te
th
e
in
te

rv
e
n
tio
n
.
co
n
tr
o
l g
ro
u
p
r
e
ce
iv
in
g
T
h
e
d
a
ta

c
o
m
p
a
re
d
th
e
s
e
co
n
d
w
a
s
w
ith
a
fo
llo
w
-u
p

p
e
ri
o
d
o
f
in
t
h
e
t
o
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
P
a
tie
n
ts

w
h
o
d
id
n
o
t
re
g
u
la
r
in
p
a
tie
n
t
tw
o
p
o
p
u
la
tio

n
s,
in
-
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
o
f
th
e
2
4
m
o
n
th
s
p
o
st

-
o
r
a
c
o
n
tr
o
l g
ro
u
p
co
m
p
le
te
t
h
e
tr
e
a
tm
e
n

t.
p
a
tie
n
ts
w
ith
d
ia
g
n
o
se
s
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y.
im
p

le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
.
w
ith
r
e
g
u
la
r
in
p
a
tie
n
t
p
ro
g
ra

m
m
e
w
e
re
o
f
o
n
e
s
e
ri
o
u
s
m
e
n
ta
l
tr
e
a
tm
e

n
t.
d
is
ch
a
rg
e
d
f
ro
m
t
h
e
ill
n
e
ss
a
n
d
in
p
a
tie
n
ts

p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
if
t
h
e
y
w
ith
a
d
u
a
l d
ia
g
n
o
se
s.
co

u
ld
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
cr
ite
ri
a
e
.g
. d
e
m
o
n
st
ra
tin
g
a
sp

e
ci
fic
r
e
d
u
ct
io
n
in
m
a
la
d
a
p
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
v-
io
u

rs
in
t
h
e
f
ir
st
1
–
3
w
e
e
ks
.
S
a
m
p
le
P
a
rt
ic
ip

a
n
ts
w
e
re
b
o
th
P
a
rt
ic
ip
a
n
ts
w
e
re
m
a
le
P
a
rt
ic

ip
a
n
ts
w
e
re
m
a
le
P
a
rt
ic
ip
a
n
ts
w
e
re
P
a
rt
ic
ip

a
n
ts
in
t
h
e
P
a
rt
ic
ip
a
n
ts
in
t
h
e
P
a
rt
ic
ip
a
n
ts

in
t
h
e
se
xe
s
o
n
a
r
e
st
ri
ct
iv
e
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
,
2
0
–
5

0
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
. T
h
e
y
e
ith
e
r
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
w
ith
a
st
u

d
y
w
e
re
a
d
m
itt
e
d
t
o
st
u
d
y
w
e
re
a
d
m
itt
e
d
st
u

d
y
w
e
re
m
a
le
in
p
a
tie
n
t
u
n
it,
a
g
e
d
ye
a
rs
o
f
a
g
e

,
m
in
im
u
m
h
a
d
a
d
ia
g
n
o
si
s
o
f
a
p
ri
n
ci
p
a
l d

ia
g
n
o
si
s
o
f
a
n
e
o
-a
d
u
lt
in
p
a
tie
n
t
to
a
g
e
n

e
ra
l a
d
m
is
si
o
n
a
g
e
d
3
0
–
6
0
w
ith
a
1
8
y
e
a
rs

o
r
o
ld
e
r
a
n
d
3
y
e
a
rs
o
f
si
n
g
le
m
e
n
t-
si
n
g

le
s
e
ri
o
u
s
m
e
n
ta
l
m
a
jo
r
d
e
p
re
ss
io
n
w
ith
p
sy

ch
ia
tr
ic
u
n
it,
a
n
d
a
d
u
lt
in
p
a
tie
n
t
h
is
to
ry
o
f

vi
o
le
n
ce
,
a
d
u
a
l-
d
ia
g
n
o
si
s
o
f
a
l i
lln
e

ss
d
ia
g
n
o
se
s
ill
n
e
ss
o
r
a
d
u
a
l
n
o
h
is
to
ry

o
f p
sy
ch
o
si
s.
in
vo
lu
n
ta
ri
ly
c
o
m
m
itt
e
d
p
sy
ch
ia

tr
ic
u
n
it
w
ith
a
d
m
itt
e
d
t
o
a
m
e
n
ta
l r
e
ta
rd
a
tio
n

a
n
d
o
f
sc
h
iz
o
p
h
re
n
ia
.
d
ia
g
n
o
si
s,
it
w
a
s

th
e
ir
B
A
T
D
n
=
1
0
w
ith
v
a
ri
o
u
s
m
e
n
ta
l
va
ri

o
u
s
m
e
n
ta
l i
lln
e
ss
p
sy
ch
ia
tr
ic
h
o
sp
ita
l.
a
D
S
M

I
V
D
ia
g
n
o
se
s
E
xe
rc
is
e
a
s
in
te
r-
fir
st
h
o
sp
ita

lis
a
tio
n
o
n
S
P
n
=
1
5
.
ill
n
e
ss
d
ia
g
n
o
se
s.
d
ia

g
n
o
se
s.
E
xp
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l g
ro
u
p
o
f
a
s
e
ve
re
P
D

o
r
B
D
.
ve
n
tio
n
n
=
1
5
th
e
u
n
it;
t
h
e
y
st
a
ye

d
in
P
re
-i
m
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
P
re
-i
m
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n

C
o
n
tr
o
l g
ro
u
p
C
o
m
p
le
tio
n
o
f
To
ke
n
-b
e
h
a
vi

o
u
r
h
o
sp
ita
l a
t
le
a
st
3
0
n
=
5
9
3
n
=
3
1
6
n

=
2
2
.
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
&
P
D
th
e
ra
py
a
s
in
te
rv
e
n

tio
n
d
a
ys
a
n
d
p
a
rt
ic
ip
a
te
d
P
o
st
-i
m
p
le
m
e
n

ta
tio
n
P
o
st
-i
n
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
n
=
1
7
n
=
1
5
in
t
h
e
P

IP
. S
M
I
n
=
1
0
1
n
=
5
9
6
.
n
=
5
5
3
.
C
o
m
p

le
tio
n
o
f
C
o
n
tr
o
l n
=
1
5
.
D
u
a
l d
ia
g
n
o
si

s
D
D
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
&
B
D
n
=
4
6
.
n
=
1
N
o
n
-c

o
m
p
le
tio
n
o
f
th
e
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
n
=
1
7
.
C
o
n
tin

u
e
d
124 © NAPICU 2016
GLOWACKI ET AL.
Ta
b
le
1
.
C
o
n
tin
u
e
d C
o
m
a
ty
e
t

a
l.
2
0
0
1
G
h
o
li
p
o
u
r
e
t
a
l.
2
0
1
2
H
a
s
s
e

ll
, 2
0
0
9
H
o
p
k
o
e
t
a
l.
2
0
0
3
L
e
P
a
g
e
, 1
9

9
9
L
e
P
a
g
e
e
t
a
l.
2
0
0
3
P
a
rk
&
L
e
e
, 2
0
1
2

In
te
rv
e
n
ti
o
n
R
e
w
a
rd
s
in
t
h
e
f
o
rm
o
f
T
h
e

t
h
e
ra
p
e
u
tic
in
te
r-
Im
m
e
d
ia
te
p
o
si
tiv
e
A
ct
iv
ity

a
n
d
g
o
a
l
To
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
To
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
In
t

h
e
S
T
T
E
g
ro
u
p,
p
la
st
ic
t
o
ke
n
s
w
e
re
ve
n
tio
n

o
f
to
ke
n
-
re
in
fo
rc
e
m
e
n
t
in
t
h
e
se
tt
in
g
a
ct
iv

iti
e
s
w
ith
a
in
cl
u
d
e
d
a
c
la
ss
ro
o
m
in
vo
lv
e
d
r
e

ce
iv
in
g
p
a
rt
ic
ip
a
n
ts
w
e
re
g
iv
e
n
t
o
p
a
tie
n
ts

fo
r
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r
th
e
ra
p
y
fo
rm
o
f
p
o
in
ts
f
o
r
th
e

tr
a
in
e
d
t
h
e
ra
p
is
t.
A
tr
a
in
in
g
s
e
ss
io
n
a
n
d
a

st
a
m
p
s
o
n
a
d
a
ily
t
im
e
g
iv
e
n
p
o
si
tiv
e
r
e

in
-
p
o
si
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r
w
a
s
g
iv
e
n
t
o
t
h
e
r

e
s-
p
e
rf
o
rm
a
n
ce
o
f
p
ro
g
re
ss
a
n
d
m
a
st
e
r

tr
ia
l o
f
th
e
t
o
ke
n
-
sh
e
e
t
co
n
tr
o
lle
d
b
y
fo
rc
e
m

e
n
ts
t
h
ro
u
g
h
e
.g
. a
p
p
ro
p
ri
a
te
p
e
ct
iv
e
in
te

rv
e
n
tio
n
ta
rg
e
te
d
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r
in
lo
g
w
a
s
ke
p

t
a
n
d
b
a
se
d
e
co
n
o
m
y.
st
a
ff.
P
a
tie
n
ts
e
a
rn
e
d

st
ic
ke
rs
a
s
to
ke
n
s.
p
e
rs
o
n
a
l h
yg
ie
n
e
,
g
ro
u

p
f
o
r
2
-h
o
u
r
A
D
L
s,
m
e
d
ic
a
tio
n
p
a
tie
n
ts
w
o

u
ld
m
e
e
t
To
ke
n
s
w
e
re
p
ri
m
a
ri
ly
st
a
m
p
s
fo
r

b
e
h
a
vi
-
T
h
e
y
w
e
re
g
iv
e
n
fo
r
cl
e
a
n
in
g
a

b
e
d
ro
o
m
,
se
ss
io
n
s,
3
d
a
ys
a
co
m
p
lia
n
ce
a
n
d

g
ro
u
p
w
ith
a
c
lin
ic
ia
n
3
t
im
e
s
g
iv
e
n
a
s
re
in

fo
rc
e
m
e
n
t
o
u
rs
t
h
a
t
fa
ci
lit
a
te
d
th
e
a
b
st
in

e
n
ce
o
f
b
e
in
g
o
n
t
im
e
e
tc
.
w
e
e
k
fo
r
3
m
o

n
th
s.
a
tt
e
n
d
a
n
ce
. P
o
in
ts
p
e
r
w
e
e
k
fo
r
2
0
fo
r

p
o
si
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
o
r
w
e
re
a
g
g

re
ss
iv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r
To
ke
n
s
w
e
re
s
to
re
d
in
w
e

re
r
e
m
o
ve
d
fo
r
m
in
u
te
s
to
m
e
e
t
a
n
d
e
.g
. g
ro

u
p
p
a
rt
ic
ip
a
tio
n
u
se
fu
l f
o
r
re
m
a
in
in
g
fo
r
a

2
4
-h
o
u
r
d
a
y.
a
‘b
a
n
k’
fo
r
e
a
ch
p
a
tie
n
t
u
n

a
cc
e
p
ta
b
le
o
r
in
-
a
d
ju
st
g
o
a
ls
. T
o
ke
n
s
a
n

d
k
e
e
p
in
g
a
r
o
o
m
in
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
ity
To
ke
n
s

co
u
ld
b
e
r
e
-
a
t
th
e
n
u
rs
in
g
s
ta
tio
n
.
a
p
p
ro

p
ri
a
te
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r.
w
e
re
p
ro
vi
d
e
d
fo
r
cl
e
a
n
. T

o
ke
n
s
co
u
ld
e
.g
. p
a
rt
ic
ip
a
tin
g
in
d
e
e
m
e
d
fo

r
re
w
a
rd
s
F
in
e
s
o
r
p
e
n
a
lti
e
s
w
e
re
P
o
in
ts
c

o
u
ld
b
e
r
e
-
a
ch
ie
vi
n
g
B
A
T
D
g
o
a
ls
,
b
e

lo
st
fo
r
m
a
jo
r
sa
fe
ty
g
ro
u
p
t
h
e
ra
p
y,
m
e
d
ic
-

e
.g
. c
o
ff
e
e
,
fr
ie
d
g
iv
e
n
a
n
d
t
o
ke
n
s
d
e
e
m
e

d
fo
r
ite
m
s
in
t
h
e
w
h
ic
h
c
o
u
ld
b
e
e
x-
vi
o
la

tio
n
s
e
.g
. v
io
le
n
ce
,
a
tio
n
a
d
h
e
re
n
ce
a
n
d
ch
ic

ke
n
,
o
u
td
o
o
r
re
m
o
ve
d
f
o
r
m
a
l-
P
IP
s
to
re
e
.g

. c
lo
th
in
g
.
ch
a
n
g
e
d
fo
r
th
in
g
s
th
re
a
ts
o
r
d
e
st

ro
yi
n
g
sh
o
w
e
ri
n
g
. M
a
jo
r
a
ct
iv
iti
e
s
o
r
sl
e

e
p
in
g
a
d
a
p
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
e
.g
. o
ff
-g
ro
u
n
d
s

p
ro
p
e
rt
y.
T
o
ke
n
s
co
u
ld
vi
o
la
tio
n
t
o
s
a
fe
ty
in

.
d
iv
id
e
d
in
to
3
c
a
te
-
p
a
ss
e
s,
p
h
o
n
e
c
a
rd
s
b

e
e
xc
h
a
n
g
e
d
f
o
r
ru
le
s
re
su
lte
d
in
g
o
ri
e
s
o
f
se

ve
ri
ty
. T
h
e
a
n
d
s
n
a
ck
s.
th
in
g
s
e
.g
. o
ff
-g
ro
u
n

d
to
ke
n
s
b
e
in
g
t
a
ke
n
h
ig
h
e
st
f
in
e
s
w
e
re
fo

r
p
a
ss
e
s,
m
o
vi
e
s,
a
w
a
y.
T
o
ke
n
s
co
u
ld
M
a
jo

r
M
a
la
d
a
p
tiv
e
sn
a
ck
s
e
tc
.
b
e
u
se
d
in
a
t
o
ke

n
V
io
la
tio
n
s
(i
n
cl
u
d
in
g
st
o
re
fo
r
sn
a
ck
s
o
r

p
h
ys
ic
a
l a
ss
a
u
lt,
m
o
vi
e
s
o
r
e
xc
h
a
n
g
e
d
p
ro

p
e
rt
y
d
a
m
a
g
e
,
fo
r
a
d
e
si
ra
b
le
e
ve
n
t
su
b
st

a
n
ce
a
b
u
se
,
e
tc
.)
.
e
.g
. a
n
o
ff
-u
n
it
p
a
ss
.

O
u
tc
o
m
e
s
A
ss
e
ss
m
e
n
t
w
a
s
d
o
n
e
A
ss
e
ss

m
e
n
t
w
a
s
d
o
n
e
D
a
ta
w
e
re
a
n
a
ly
se
d
in
A
ss
e
ss

m
e
n
t
w
a
s
d
o
n
e
D
a
ta
w
e
re
a
n
a
ly
se
d
in
D
a
ta

w
e
re
a
n
a
ly
se
d
D
a
ta
w
e
re
a
n
a
ly
se
d
a
t
3
w
e
e

ks
a
n
d
3
2
p
re
-
a
n
d
3
m
o
n
th
s
th
e
p
e
ri
o
d
o
f
fo

u
r
ye
a
rs
.
a
t
b
a
se
lin
e
p
ri
o
r
to
t
h
e
a
1
2
3
d
a

y
p
e
ri
o
d
1
2
m
o
n
th
s
p
re
-
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
xp
e
ri
m
e

n
ta
l
w
e
e
ks
in
to
t
h
e
p
ro
-
p
o
st
-i
n
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
.

C
h
a
n
g
e
in
p
sy
ch
o
-
fir
st
t
re
a
tm
e
n
t
se
ss
io
n
b
e

fo
re
t
h
e
t
o
ke
n
in
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
a
n
d
2
4
a
n
d
c
o
n
tr

o
l g
ro
u
p
s
g
ra
m
m
e
. D
a
ta
a
t
3
2
N
e
g
a
tiv
e
s
ym

p
to
m
s
so
ci
a
l f
u
n
ct
io
n
in
g
a
n
d
a
t
p
o
st
-i
n
te
r-

e
co
n
o
m
y
a
n
d
a
1
2
2
m
o
n
th
s
p
o
st
-
co
m
p
a
re
d

b
e
fo
re
a
n
d
w
e
e
ks
p
o
st
-i
n
te
r-
w
e
re
m
e
a
su
re

d
u
si
n
g
(f
e
w
e
r
m
a
la
d
a
p
tiv
e
ve
n
tio
n
o
n
D
a

y
1
4
o
r
d
a
y
p
e
ri
o
d
a
ft
e
r
th
e
in
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
. T

h
e
a
ft
e
r
th
e
1
2
w
e
e
k
ve
n
tio
n
is
r
e
le
va
n
t.

th
e
s
ca
le
fo
r
th
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
a
n
d
m
o
re
a
t
d
is

ch
a
rg
e
if
e
a
rl
ie
r.
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
p
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e

d
iff
e
re
n
ce
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
to
ta
l f

in
e
s
a
ss
e
ss
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
o
si
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
)

D
e
p
re
ss
iv
e
s
ym
p
to
m
s
im
p
le
m
e
n
ta
tio
n
.
o
f
th

e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
p
e
ri
o
d
. N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
g
iv
e
n

fo
r
m
a
la
d
a
p
tiv
e
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
s
ym
p
to
m
s
fr
o
m
t
im

e
o
f
a
d
m
is
si
o
n
a
ss
e
ss
e
d
u
si
n
g
t
h
e
1
.
T

h
e
p
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
a
ss
a
u
lts
,
d
e
fin
e
d
a
s
a
g
g
re

ss
iv
e
b
e
h
a
v-
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
,
n
u
m
b
e
r
(S
A
N
S

).
to
d
is
ch
a
rg
e
m
e
a
su
re
d
B
e
ck
D
e
p
re
ss
io
n
d
iff

e
re
n
ce
o
f
th
e
t
o
ta
l
st
a
ff
in
ju
ri
e
s
fr
o
m
io
u
rs

in
cl
u
d
in
g
v
e
rb
a
l
o
f
m
in
o
r
fin
e
s,
a
n
d
b
y

th
e
G
lo
b
a
l A
ss
e
ss
-
In
ve
n
to
ry
(
B
D
I)
.
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
p
a
tie
n
ts
,
p
a
tie
n
t-
a
tt
a
ck
,
p
ro
p
e

rt
y
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
a
jo
r
fin
e
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
u
n
ct

io
n
in
g
in
ci
d
e
n
ts
o
n
u
n
it.
p
a
tie
n
t
in
ju
ri
e
s
a
n

d
d
a
m
a
g
e
,
p
h
ys
ic
a
l
co
m
p
a
re
d
b
e
tw
e
e
n
(G

A
F
)
sc
o
re
.
2
.
T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
se
lf-
in
ju
ri
e

s
th
a
t
a
tt
a
ck
a
g
a
in
st
s
e
lf
a
n
d
th
e
3
g
ro
u
p
s.

p
a
tie
n
t
a
n
d
s
ta
ff
re
q
u
ir
e
d
m
e
d
ic
a
l
p
h
ys
ic
a

l a
tt
a
ck
in
ju
ri
e
s.
a
tt
e
n
tio
n
.
a
g
a
in
st
o
th
e
r.

125© NAPICU 2016
A TOKEN ECONOMY
R
e
s
u
lt
s
T
h
e
n
o
n
-c
o
m
p
le
te
rs
T
h
e
t
o
ke

n
-b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r
B
o
th
t
h
e
S
M
I
g
ro
u
p
T
h
e
B
A

T
D
g
ro
u
p
To
ta
l n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
To
ta
l n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f

To
ta
l n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
sh
o
w
e
d
s
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
tly
th
e
ra

py
g
ro
u
p
s
h
o
w
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
D
D
g
ro
u
p
sh
o
w
e

d
s
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
tly
in
ci
d
e
n
ts
r
e
d
u
ce
d
in
ci
d
e
n
ts
r
e

d
u
ce
d
a
g
gr
e
ss
iv
e
b
e
h
av
io
u
rs
m
o
re
f
in
e
s
th
a

n
b
o
th
fe
w
e
r
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
sh
o
w
e
d
s
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
t

b
e
tt
e
r
sc
o
re
s
o
n
t
h
e
si
g
n
ifi
ca
n
tly
. T
h
is
w
a
s
si

g
n
ifi
ca
n
tly
a
ft
e
r
u
se
fo
r
th
e
e
xp
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l
o
f
th

e
g
ro
u
p
s
th
a
t
sy
m
p
to
m
s
a
ft
e
r
in
te
r-
im
p
ro

ve
m
e
n
ts
o
n
t
h
e
B
D
I
in
d
ex
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
S
P
fr
o
m

1
2
9
t
o
ta
l i
n
ci
d
e
n
ts
o
f
th
e
t
o
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y.
g

ro
u
p
d
e
cr
e
a
se
d
fr
o
m
fin
is
h
e
d
t
h
e
t
o
ke
n
ve
n

tio
n
. T
h
e
r
e
su
lts
G
A
F
a
ft
e
r
h
o
sp
ita
lis
-
g
ro
u
p

(
u
su
a
l i
n
p
a
tie
n
t
to
7
3
in
ci
d
e
n
ts
. T
h
e
T
h
e
n

u
m
b
e
r
o
f
1
7
8
t
o
1
4
1
a
ft
e
r
th
e
e
co
n
o
m

y
in
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
,
w
e
re
s
ta
tis
tic
a
lly
a
tio
n
a
n
d
t
h

e
t
o
ke
n
tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t)
,
sh
o
w
in
g
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
st

a
ff
a
n
d
p
a
tie
n
t–
p
a
tie
n
t
in
ju
ri
e
s
in
te
rv
e
n
tio

n
. T
h
is
w
a
s
th
u
s
sh
o
w
in
g
h
ig
h
e
r
si
g
n
ifi
ca
n
t.

e
co
n
o
m
y
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
.
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
s
ym
p
to
m
p
a

tie
n
t
in
ju
ri
e
s
a
ls
o
d
e
cr
e
a
se
d
s
ig
n
ifi
c-
a
s
ig

n
ifi
ca
n
t d
e
cr
e
a
se
ra
te
s
o
f
m
a
la
d
a
p
tiv
e
T
h
e
im

p
ro
ve
m
e
n
t
is
a
n
re
d
u
ct
io
n
. T
h
e
re
w
a
s
si
g
n

ifi
ca
n
tly
r
e
d
u
ce
d
.
a
n
tly
. T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
s

co
m
p
a
re
d
t
o
t
h
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
w
h
ile
in
in
d
ic
a

tio
n
o
f
p
sy
ch
o
-
a
ls
o
a
la
rg
e
e
ffe
ct
p
a
tie
n
t–
st

a
ff
a
n
d
s
e
lf-
co
n
tr
o
l g
ro
u
p.
h
o
sp
ita
l.
so
ci
a
l i
m

p
ro
ve
m
e
n
t,
si
ze
.
in
ju
ri
e
s
re
d
u
ce
d
,
b
u
t
m
e
a

n
in
g
f
e
w
e
r
m
a
l-
th
e
r
e
su
lts
w
e
re
n
o
t
a
d
a

p
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
.
st
a
tis
tic
a
lly
s
ig
n
ifi
ca
n

t.
S
ig
n
if
ic
a
n
c
e
To
ta
l f
in
e
s:
p
<
0
.0
0
1
p
<

0
.0
0
1
.
P
o
st
-i
n
te
rv
e
n
tio
n
a
n
d
B
A
T
D
g
ro
u
p

:
A
ft
e
r
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y:
A
ft
e
r
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m

y:
A
ft
e
r
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y:
S
ta
tis
tic
a
l
M
in
o
r
fin
e

s:
p
<
0
.0
0
6
M
e
a
n
a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
a
t
d
is
ch
a
rg

e
f
o
r
b
o
th
M
e
a
n
a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
To
ta
l i
n
ci
d
e
n
ts

:
P
a
tie
n
t–
p
a
tie
n
t
A
ve
ra
g
e
a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
si

g
n
ifi
ca
n
ce
M
a
jo
r
fin
e
s:
p
<
0
.0
0
2
d
ev
ia
tio
n
:

g
ro
u
p
s
p
<
0
.0
1
. A
n
d
e
vi
a
tio
n
:
4
3
%
d
e
cr
e

a
se
in
ju
ri
e
s:
4
8
%
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
ev
ia
tio
n
:
(p
<
0
.0

5
)
M
e
a
n
a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
p
re
-
7
7
±
1
4
in
cr
e
a
se

in
t
h
e
G
A
F
p
re
-
3
5
.1
±
7
.4
a
n
d
(p
<
0
.0
1
)

(p
<
0
.0
5
)
E
xp
e
ri
m
e
n
ta
l g
ro
u
p
:
d
e
vi
a
tio
n
w

a
s
o
n
ly
p
o
st
-
4
1
±
1
1
.
in
d
ic
a
te
s
im
p
ro
ve
m

e
n
t.
p
o
st
-
1
9
.1
±
1
3
.1
.
S
ta
ff
in
ju
ry
: 5
4
%
S
e

lf-
in
ju
ry
: 1
7
%
P
re
-
5
3
.9
5
±
3
.1
2
g
iv
e
n
fo
r
le

n
g
th
o
f
M
e
a
n
a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
T
h
is
w
a
s
si
g
n
ifi

ca
n
tly
d
e
cr
e
a
se
(
p
<
0
.0
1
)
ch
a
n
g
e
(
n
o
t
P
o
st

-
4
1
.9
0
±
2
.3
4
h
o
sp
ita
l s
ta
y
w
h
ic
h
is
d
e
vi
a
tio

n
:
g
re
a
te
r
th
a
n
t
h
e
P
a
tie
n
t
In
ju
ry
: 4
5
%
si
g

n
ifi
ca
n
t)
C
o
n
tr
o
l g
ro
u
p
:
n
o
t
th
e
o
u
tc
o
m
e
S

M
I
g
ro
u
p
a
t
ch
a
n
g
e
o
f
th
e
S
P
d
e
cr
e
a
se
(
p

<
0
.0
5
).
S
ta
ff
in
ju
ri
e
s:
2
1
%
P
re
-
5
4
.0
4
±
1

.5
5
lo
o
ke
d
a
t
fo
r
th
e
p
u
r-
a
d
m
is
si
o
n
:
g
ro

u
p
(
p
<
0
.0
5
).
M
e
a
n
a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
ch
a
n
g
e
(

n
o
t
P
o
st
-
5
6
.2
2
±
0
.9
2
p
o
se
s
o
f
th
is
p
a
p
e

r.
3
5
.6
8
±
8
.6
5
a
n
d
C
o
h
e
n
E
ffe
ct
s
iz
e
d
e
vi

a
tio
n
n
o
t
g
iv
e
n
.
si
g
n
ifi
ca
n
t)
G
ro
u
p
d
iff
e
re
n

ce
s:
d
is
ch
a
rg
e
:
la
rg
e
(
d
=
0
.7
3
).
To
ta
l i
n
ju
ri

e
s:
3
3
%
p
<
0
.0
0
1
.
5
1
.7
0
±
8
.5
4
.
ch
a
n
g
e
(

p
<
0
.0
5
).
D
D
g
ro
u
p
a
t
a
d
m
is
si
o
n
:
M
e
a
n

a
n
d
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
3
5
.3
5
±
8
.6
5
a
n
d
a
t
d
e
vi
a
tio

n
n
o
t g
iv
e
n
.
d
is
ch
a
rg
e
:
5
4
.2
2
±
7
.0
8
.
C

o
n
c
lu
s
io
n
s
T
h
e
f
in
d
in
g
s
su
p
p
o
rt
T
h
e
f
in

d
in
g
s
su
p
p
o
rt
T
h
e
f
in
d
in
g
s
sh
o
w
T
h
e
f
in
d
in

g
s
su
p
p
o
rt
T
h
e
f
in
d
in
g
s
su
p
p
o
rt
T
h
e
f
in
d
in

g
s
su
p
p
o
rt
T
h
e
f
in
d
in
g
s
su
p
p
o
rt
&
Im
p
li
c
a
ti

o
n
s
th
e
e
ff
ic
a
cy
o
f
th
e
th
e
e
ff
ic
a
cy
o
f
th

e
st
a
tis
tic
a
l s
ig
n
ifi
ca
n
ce
th
e
e
ff
ic
a
cy
o
f
a
t
o
ke
n

th
e
e
ff
ic
a
cy
o
f
th
e
th
e
e
ff
ic
a
cy
o
f
th
e
th
e
e

ff
ic
a
cy
o
f
to
ke
n
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
fo
r
to
ke
n
e
co

n
o
m
y
fo
r
fo
r
im
p
ro
vi
n
g
p
sy
ch
o
-
e
co
n
o
m
y
fo

r
sy
m
p
to
m
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
fo
r
to
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y

fo
r
e
co
n
o
m
y
u
se
fo
r
re
d
u
ci
n
g
m
a
la
d
a
p
tiv

e
re
d
u
ci
n
g
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
so
ci
a
l b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r,

b
u
t
re
d
u
ct
io
n
in
in
p
a
tie
n
ts
re
d
u
ci
n
g
t
o
ta

l n
e
g
a
tiv
e
re
d
u
ci
n
g
in
ju
ri
e
s
a
n
d
re
d
u
ci
n
g
a

g
g
re
ss
iv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
s
h
o
rt
-t
e
rm
.
sy
m
p
to
m
s

sh
o
rt
-t
e
rm
.
th
is
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
d
ia
g
n
o
se
d
w
ith
in

ci
d
e
n
ts
o
n
a
n
a
cu
te
n
e
g
a
tiv
e
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
b

e
h
a
vi
o
u
rs
. T
h
e
It
a
ls
o
s
h
o
w
s
th
e
T
h
e
p
o
p

u
la
tio
n
w
a
s
a
tt
ri
b
u
te
d
t
o
t
h
e
t
o
ke
n
d
e
p
re
ss
io

n
,
b
u
t
it
u
n
it
a
n
d
f
o
r
re
d
u
ci
n
g
re
la
te
d
t
o
v

io
le
n
ce
o
n
p
o
p
u
la
tio
n
w
a
s
lim
ite
d
b
e
n
e
fit
s
fo
r

2
d
iff
e
re
n
t
lim
ite
d
t
o
m
a
le
s
w
ith
e
co
n
o
m
y
a
lo

n
e
s
in
ce
ca
n
n
o
t
b
e
g
e
n
e
ra
lis
e
d
p
a
tie
n
t/
st
a
ff
in

ju
ry
.
a
n
in
p
a
tie
n
t
a
cu
te
to
m
a
le
s
in
a
n
in
-
cl
in

ic
a
l p
o
p
u
la
tio
n
s.
sc
h
iz
o
p
h
re
n
ia
.
th
e
re
w
a
s

n
o
c
o
n
tr
o
l
d
u
e
t
o
s
m
a
ll
sa
m
p
le
p
sy
ch
ia
tr
ic

u
n
it.
p
a
tie
n
t
p
sy
ch
ia
tr
y
g
ro
u
p
t
o
c
o
m
p
a
re

.
si
ze
. T
h
e
p
o
p
u
la
tio
n
se
tt
in
g
w
ith
a
h
is
to
ry
w
a

s
lim
ite
d
t
o
o
f
a
g
g
re
ss
iv
e
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls
w
ith
M
D

D
.
b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
r.
A
D
L
: a
ct
iv
iti
e
s
o
f d
a
ily
li

vi
n
g
; B
A
T
D
: b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
ra
l a
ct
iv
a
tio
n
tr
e
a
tm
e

n
t f
o
r d
e
p
re
ss
io
n
; B
D
: b
e
h
a
vi
o
u
ra
l d
is
o
rd
e
r;

D
D
: d
u
a
l d
ia
g
n
o
si
s
M
D
D
: m
a
jo
r d
e
p
re
ss
iv
e
d

is
o
rd
e
r;
P
D
: p
sy
ch
ia
tr
ic
d
is
o
rd
e
r;
P
IP
: p
o
in
ts

in
ce
n
tiv
e
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
; S
M
I:
se
ri
o
u
s
m
e
n
ta
l i
lln

e
ss
; S
P
: s
u
p
p
o
rt
iv
e
p
sy
ch
o
th
e
ra
p
y;
S
T
T
E

: s
h
o
rt
-t
e
rm
t
o
ke
n
e
co
n
o
m
y
126 © NAPICU 2016
GLOWACKI ET AL.
this intervention in a community setting. Comaty et al.
(2001) looked at a three-year follow-up after discharge
and re-hospitalisation rates, but the data was not conclu-
sive; thus the authors were unable to say whether a longer
stay in the community was a result of the token economy
itself.

Using a token economy may be a means of reducing
violence and aggression on inpatient units. Improved safety
in inpatient units for staff and patients may allow healthcare
practitioners to focus their attention on treatment and
rehabilitation, and less on control of the unit. Behavioural
focus could be less on the reduction of negative behav-
iours, and more on the promotion of positive behaviour for
rehabilitation and recovery. Further, reduction in negative
symptoms may also increase participation and collabora-
tion of patients toward rehabilitation goals.
Healthcare practitioners should be cautious in using a
token economy. The token economies used in the studies
of this paper varied in rewards, desired behaviour and
structure. In saying this, the general concept of each
economy was the same, earning tokens for positive behav-
iour towards rehabilitation that can be accumulated for
pre-determined rewards. The economy has potential for
abuse if implemented improperly, so programmes should
limit punishment and response costs for behaviour. This is
inclusive of the removal of tokens for negative behaviour.
Based on a recovery-oriented, patient-centred approach,
the following recommendations derive from the literature:
1. Participants in the programme should be given the
option of enrolling at admission, and participation
should stay voluntary throughout (LePage et al. 2003;
Park & Lee, 2012).
2. Staff and patients involved in the token economy
should collaborate to pre-determine rewards (Chiou
et al. 2006; Dunn et al. 2008; Park & Lee, 2012).
Rewards should also be individualised (Park & Lee,
2012).
3. Thorough staff training should be done to ensure

consistency in programme implementation (LePage
1999; LePage et al. 2003).
4. The token/voucher should be given immediately,
thereby verifying positive behaviour (Chiou, et al.
2006; LePage et al. 2003).
5. The economy should be used in congruence with
individualised treatment programmes (LePage, 1999;
Gholipour et al. 2012; Park & Lee, 2012).
It is important to identify the limitations to this literature
review. A small number of studies were analysed, as
there are limited recent research studies on this interven-
tion. The quality is also limited by the fact that only
three studies were randomised controlled trials. Further,
this was a brief review of the literature available. The
research was only analysed by one person, and only
English studies were used.
Areas for future research have been identified from this
review. The first is using a date after hospital discharge to
focus on psychosocial outcomes of participants and their
functioning in society outside of an institutional environ-
ment. Usually hospitalisation is temporary, and it is
important to find a transferable intervention for commu-
nity care and living. Further, multiple units in one hospital,
or comparison of multiple hospital studies could be done
with comparison of control and experimental groups.
Research should also be done on symptom reduction for a
wider range of diagnoses within a hospital or inpatient
unit. Research could also be done on the comparison of
different types of rewards within the economies.
Conclusions

The findings of this literature review support the efficacy
of a token economy for reducing negative behaviours in an
inpatient psychiatric setting. This intervention should be
considered by healthcare professionals working in an
inpatient setting for reduction of negative behaviours, or
increased safety of the units. When implementing a token
economy, the recommendations made on adapting the
economy based on a recovery-oriented patient-centred
practice should also be considered. Few studies were done
on the efficacy of the economy for reducing negative
symptoms, but all that were done determined that the token
economy was effective in symptom reduction. The use of a
token economy for symptom reduction should be used
with caution until further research is done on the topic.
Since the overall number of research studies was lim-
ited, the findings identify the need for further research on
this intervention and its effects on reducing negative be-
haviours and symptoms. While more research is needed,
the current findings should encourage healthcare practi-
tioners to consider the use of a rewards-based token
economy as a treatment intervention in an inpatient psy-
chiatry setting.
Acknowledgements
School of Occupational Therapy at Dalhousie University.
The Waterford Hospital in St. John’s Newfoundland, where
the research first started based on a clinical need.
References
Bowers, L. (2005) Reasons for admission and their implications
for
the nature of acute inpatient psychiatric nursing. Journal of

Psychiatric & Mental Health Nursing, 12(2): 231–236. doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00825.x
Chiou, J., Chou, M., Hsu, M. and Lin., M. (2006) Significant
experiences of token therapy from the perspective of psychotic
patients. Journal of Nursing Research, 14(4): 315–322.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-
references?article=1351-0126()12:2L.231[aid=10836575]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00825.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00825.x
127© NAPICU 2016
A TOKEN ECONOMY
Coelho, C.M., Palha, A.P., Gonçalves, D.C. and Pachana, N.
(2008)
Rehabilitation programs for elderly women inpatients with
schizo-
phrenia. Journal of Women & Aging, 20(3/4): 283–295.
Comaty, J.E., Stasio, M. and Advokat, C. (2001) Analysis of
out-
come variables of a token economy system in a state psychiatric
hospital: a program evaluation. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 22(3): 233–253.
Dickerson, F.B., Tenhula, W.N., and Green-Paden, L.D. (2005)
The
token economy for schizophrenia: review of the literature and
recommendations for future research. Schizophrenia Research,
75(2–3): 405–416.

Dunn, K., Sigmon, S., Thomas, C., Heil, S. and Higgins, S.
(2008)
Voucher-based contingent reinforcement of smoking abstinence
among methadone-maintained patients: a pilot study. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 41: 527–538.
Gholipour, A.A., Abolghasemi, S.H., Gholinia, K.K and Taheri,
S.
(2012) Token reinforcement therapeutic approach is more effec-
tive than exercise for controlling negative symptoms of
schizophrenic patients: a randomized controlled trial. Interna-
tional Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3(7): 466–470.
Hassell, J.T. (2009) An evolution of the points incentive
program: a
token economy program for veterans hospitalized on an inpa-
tient treatment unit. PhD Thesis, Alliant International
University,
Los Angeles. Dissertation Abstracts International, 71.
Hopko, D.R., Lejuez, C.W., LePage, J.P., Hopko, S.D. and
McNeil,
D.W. (2003) A brief behavioral activation treatment for depres -
sion: a randomized pilot trial within an inpatient psychiatric
hospital. Behavior Modification, 27(4): 458–469.
Kreyenbuhl, J., Buchanan, R.W., Dickerson, F.B. and Dixon,
L.B.
(2010) The schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team
(PORT): updated treatment recommendations 2009. Schizo-
phrenia Bulletin, 36(1): 94–103.
LePage, J. (1999) The impact of a token economy on injuries
and

negative events on an acute psychiatric unit. Psychiatric Serv-
ices, 50(7): 941–944.
Lepage, J., Delben, K., Pollard, S., McGhee, M., VanHorn, L.,
Murphy, J., Lewis, P., Aboraya, A. and Mogge, N. (2003)
Reduc-
ing assaults on an acute psychiatric unit using a token economy:
a 2 year follow-up. Behavioral Interventions, 18: 179–190.
McMonagle, T. and Sultana, A. (2000) Token economy for
schizo-
phrenia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2000(3):
CD001473.
OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group (2009) The Oxford
Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medi-
cine, Levels of Evidence Working Group.
Park, J.S. and Lee, K. (2012) Modification of severe violent and
aggressive behavior among psychiatric inpatients through the
use of a short-term token economy. Journal of Korean Academy
of Nursing, 42(7): 1062–1069.
Seegert, C.R. (2003) Token economies and incentive programs:
behavioral improvement in mental health inmates housed in
state prisons. The Behavior Therapist, 26(1): 208, 210–211.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction
prohibited without permission.

(NR326 Mental Health NursingRUA Scholarly

(NR326 Mental Health NursingRUA Scholarly

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to (NR326 Mental Health NursingRUA Scholarly

Similar to (NR326 Mental Health NursingRUA Scholarly (15)

More from VannaJoy20

More from VannaJoy20 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

(NR326 Mental Health NursingRUA Scholarly