Cognitive behaviour therapy versus other psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia

How much do we know about schizophrenia and how well do we know it? Evidence from the Schizophrenia Library

BACKGROUND

True findings about schizophrenia remain elusive; many findings are not replicated and conflicting results are common. Well-conducted systematic reviews have the ability to make robust, generalizable conclusions, with good meta-analyses potentially providing the closest estimate of the true effect size. In this paper, we undertake a systematic approach to synthesising the available evidence from well-conducted systematic reviews on schizophrenia.

METHOD

Reviews were identified by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Current Contents and PsycINFO. The decision to include or exclude reviews, data extraction and quality assessments were conducted in duplicate. Evidence was graded as high quality if reviews contained large samples and robust results; and as moderate quality if reviews contained imprecision, inconsistency, smaller samples or study designs that may be prone to bias.

RESULTS

High- and moderate-quality evidence shows that numerous psychosocial and biomedical treatments are effective. Patients have relatively poor cognitive functioning, and subtle, but diverse, structural brain alterations, altered electrophysiological functioning and sleep patterns, minor physical anomalies, neurological soft signs, and sensory alterations. There are markers of infection, inflammation or altered immunological parameters; and there is increased mortality from a range of causes. Risk for schizophrenia is increased with cannabis use, pregnancy and birth complications, prenatal exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, childhood central nervous system viral infections, childhood adversities, urbanicity and immigration (first and second generation), particularly in certain ethnic groups. Developmental motor delays and lower intelligence quotient in childhood and adolescence are apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that while our knowledge of schizophrenia is very substantial, our understanding of it remains limited.

The promise of cognitive behavior therapy for treatment of severe mental disorders: a review of recent developments

Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), as exemplified by the model of psychotherapy developed and refined over the past 40 years by A.T. Beck and colleagues, is one of the treatments of first choice for ambulatory depressive and anxiety disorders. Over the past several decades, there have been vigorous efforts to adapt CBT for treatment of more severe mental disorders, including schizophrenia and the more chronic and/or treatment refractory mood disorders. These efforts have primarily studied CBT as an adjunctive therapy, i.e., in combination with pharmacotherapy. Given the several limitations of state-of-the-art pharmacotherapies for these severe mental disorders, demonstration of clinically meaningful additive effects for CBT would have important implications for improving public health. This paper reviews the key developments in this important area of therapeutics, providing a summary of the current state of the art and suggesting directions for future research.

Treatment resistant schizophrenia: a comprehensive survey of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a common serious mental health condition which has significant morbidity and financial consequences. The mainstay of treatment has been antipsychotic medication but one third of people will have a 'treatment resistant' and most disabling and costly illness. The aim of this survey was to produce a broad overview of available randomised evidence for interventions for people whose schizophrenic illness has been designated 'treatment resistant'.

METHOD

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's comprehensive Trials Register, selected all relevant randomised trials and, taking care not to double count, extracted the number of people randomised within each study. Finally we sought relevant reviews on the Cochrane Library and investigated how data on this subgroup of people had been presented.

RESULTS

We identified 542 relevant papers based on 268 trials (Average size 64.8 SD 61.6, range 7-526, median 56 IQR 47.3, mode 60). The most studied intervention is clozapine with 82 studies (total n = 6299) comparing it against other anti-psychotic medications. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), or transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) supplementing a standard care and risperidone supplementation of clozapine has also been extensively evaluated within trials. Many approaches, however, were clearly under researched. There were only four studies investigating combinations of non-clozapine antipsychotics. Only two psychological approaches (CBT and Family Rehabilitation Training) had more than two studies. Cochrane reviews rarely presented data specific to this important clinical sub-group.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a broad taxonomy of how much evaluative research has been carried out investigating interventions for people with treatment resistant schizophrenia. Over 280 trials have been undertaken but, with a few exceptions, most treatment approaches--and some in common use--have only one or two relevant but small trials. Too infrequently the leading reviews fail to highlight the paucity of evidence in this area--as these reviews are maintained this shortcoming should be addressed.

The recording of adverse events from psychological treatments in clinical trials: evidence from a review of NIHR-funded trials

Background

There is a concern in the literature that harm from interventions is insufficiently documented in clinical trials in general, and in those assessing psychological treatments in particular. A recent decision by a trial steering committee to stop recruitment into a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a psychological intervention for personality disorder led to an investigation of the recording of harm in trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Methods

The protocols and final reports of all 82 NIHR trials funded between 1995 and 2013 were examined for the reporting of adverse events. These were subdivided by category of intervention.

Results

None of the psychological intervention trials mentioned the occurrence of an adverse event in their final report. Trials of drug treatments were more likely to mention adverse events in their protocols compared with those using psychological treatments. When adverse events were mentioned, the protocols of psychological interventions relied heavily on severe adverse events guidelines from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES), which were developed for drug rather than psychological interventions and so may not be appropriate for the latter.

Conclusions

This survey supported the belief that the reporting of adverse events in psychological treatments is weak and the criteria used may not be appropriate. Recommendations are made as to how current practice might be improved.

A randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for psychosis: study protocol

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis has been a prominent intervention in the psychological treatment of psychosis. It is, however, a challenging therapy to deliver and, in the context of increasingly rigorous trials, recent reviews have tempered initial enthusiasm about its effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes. Acceptance and commitment therapy shows promise as a briefer, more easily implemented therapy but has not yet been rigorously evaluated in the context of psychosis. The purpose of this trial is to evaluate whether Acceptance and Commitment Therapy could reduce the distress and disability associated with psychotic symptoms in a sample of community-residing patients with chronic medication-resistant symptoms.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a single (rater)-blind multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy with an active comparison condition, Befriending. Eligible participants have current residual hallucinations or delusions with associated distress or disability which have been present continuously over the past six months despite therapeutic doses of antipsychotic medication. Following baseline assessment, participants are randomly allocated to treatment condition with blinded, post-treatment assessments conducted at the end of treatment and at 6 months follow-up. The primary outcome is overall mental state as measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. Secondary outcomes include preoccupation, conviction, distress and disruption to life associated with symptoms as measured by the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales, as well as social functioning and service utilisation. The main analyses will be by intention-to-treat using mixed-model repeated measures with non-parametric methods employed if required. The model of change underpinning ACT will be tested using mediation analyses.

DISCUSSION

This protocol describes the first randomised controlled trial of Acceptance and commitment therapy in chronic medication-resistant psychosis with an active comparison condition. The rigor of the design will provide an important test of its action and efficacy in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12608000210370. Date registered: 18 April 2008.

Metacognitive therapy in people with a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis and medication resistant symptoms: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for psychosis has been shown to be effective, but there are recent suggestions that it is less efficacious than initially thought. Metacognitive therapy (MCT), which focuses on metacognitive mechanisms, has led to positive results in other disorders, but has yet to be evaluated in people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses. This study evaluates the feasibility of MCT for people with psychotic disorders.

METHODS

Ten participants with schizophrenia spectrum disorders received up to 12 sessions of MCT in an open trial. Outcomes included psychiatric symptoms measured using the PANSS, at baseline, 9 months (end of treatment) and at 12 months (follow-up), as well as dimensions of hallucinations and delusions, emotional dysfunction, self-rated recovery, social functioning and metacognitive beliefs.

RESULTS

T-tests and Wilcoxon's signed ranks tests revealed significant beneficial effects on several outcomes at end-of-treatment and follow-up. Cohen's d effect sizes were moderate to large (for PANSS total, d = 1.0 at end of treatment; d = 0.95 at follow-up). A response rate analysis found 50% and 40% of participants achieved at least a 25% reduction in PANSS total scores by end of therapy and follow-up, respectively. Exploratory analyses revealed that metacognitive beliefs significantly changed over treatment and follow-up periods.

LIMITATIONS

This study had no control group and was not randomised; therefore, it is likely that effect sizes were inflated.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides preliminary evidence that MCT is a feasible treatment for people with psychosis. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial is warranted.

Cognitive behaviour therapy to prevent harmful compliance with command hallucinations (COMMAND): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acting on command hallucinations in psychosis can have serious consequences for the individual and for other people and is a major cause of clinical and public concern. No evidence-based treatments are available to reduce this risk behaviour. We therefore tested our new cognitive therapy to challenge the perceived power of voices to inflict harm on the voice hearer if commands are not followed, thereby reducing the hearer's motivation to comply.

METHODS

In COMMAND, a single-blind, randomised controlled trial, eligible participants from three centres in the UK who had command hallucinations for at least 6 months leading to major episodes of harm to themselves or other people were assigned in a 1: 1 ratio to cognitive therapy for command hallucinations + treatment as usual versus just treatment as usual for 9 months. Only the raters were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was harmful compliance. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN62304114.

FINDINGS

98 (50%) of 197 participants were assigned to cognitive therapy for command hallucinations + treatment as usual and 99 (50%) to treatment as usual. At 18 months, 39 (46%) of 85 participants in the treatment as usual group fully complied with the voices compared with 22 (28%) of 79 in the cognitive therapy for command hallucinations + treatment as usual group (odds ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·23-0·88, p=0·021). At 9 months the treatment effect was not significant (0·74, 0·40-1·39, p=0·353). However, the treatment by follow-up interaction was not significant and the treatment effect common to both follow-up points was 0·57 (0·33-0·98, p=0·042).

INTERPRETATION

This is the first trial to show a clinically meaningful reduction in risk behaviour associated with commanding voices. We will next determine if change in power was the mediator of change. Further more complex trials are needed to identify the most influential components of the treatment in reducing power and compliance.

FUNDING

UK Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research.

Early specific cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy in subjects at high risk for bipolar disorders: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Bipolar disorders (BD) are among the most severe mental disorders with first clinical signs and symptoms frequently appearing in adolescence and early adulthood. The long latency in clinical diagnosis (and subsequent adequate treatment) adversely affects the course of disease, effectiveness of interventions and health-related quality of life, and increases the economic burden of BD. Despite uncertainties about risk constellations and symptomatology in the early stages of potentially developing BD, many adolescents and young adults seek help, and most of them suffer substantially from symptoms already leading to impairments in psychosocial functioning in school, training, at work and in their social relationships. We aimed to identify subjects at risk of developing BD and investigate the efficacy and safety of early specific cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy (CBT) in this subpopulation.

Methods/Design

EarlyCBT is a randomised controlled multi-centre clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early specific CBT, including stress management and problem solving strategies, with elements of mindfulness-based therapy (MBT) versus unstructured group meetings for 14 weeks each and follow-up until week 78. Participants are recruited at seven university hospitals throughout Germany, which provide in- and outpatient care (including early recognition centres) for psychiatric patients. Subjects at high risk must be 15 to 30 years old and meet the combination of specified affective symptomatology, reduction of psychosocial functioning, and family history for (schizo)affective disorders. Primary efficacy endpoints are differences in psychosocial functioning and defined affective symptomatology at 14 weeks between groups. Secondary endpoints include the above mentioned endpoints at 7, 24, 52 and 78 weeks and the change within groups compared to baseline; perception of, reaction to and coping with stress; and conversion to full BD.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate early specific CBT in subjects at high risk for BD. Structured diagnostic interviews are used to map the risk status and development of disease. With our study, the level of evidence for the treatment of those young patients will be significantly raised.

Trial registration

WHO International Clinical Trials Platform (ICTRP), identifier: DRKS00000444, date of registration: 16 June 2010.

Cognitive therapy for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders not taking antipsychotic drugs: a single-blind randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic drugs are usually the first line of treatment for schizophrenia; however, many patients refuse or discontinue their pharmacological treatment. We aimed to establish whether cognitive therapy was effective in reducing psychiatric symptoms in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who had chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs.

METHODS

We did a single-blind randomised controlled trial at two UK centres between Feb 15, 2010, and May 30, 2013. Participants aged 16-65 years with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, who had chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs for psychosis, were randomly assigned (1:1), by a computerised system with permuted block sizes of four or six, to receive cognitive therapy plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone. Randomisation was stratified by study site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. Our primary outcome was total score on the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS), which we assessed at baseline, and at months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. Analysis was by intention to treat, with an ANCOVA model adjusted for site, age, sex, and baseline symptoms. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 29607432.

FINDINGS

74 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either cognitive therapy plus treatment as usual (n=37), or treatment as usual alone (n=37). Mean PANSS total scores were consistently lower in the cognitive therapy group than in the treatment as usual group, with an estimated between-group effect size of -6.52 (95% CI -10.79 to -2.25; p=0.003). We recorded eight serious adverse events: two in patients in the cognitive therapy group (one attempted overdose and one patient presenting risk to others, both after therapy), and six in those in the treatment as usual group (two deaths, both of which were deemed unrelated to trial participation or mental health; three compulsory admissions to hospital for treatment under the mental health act; and one attempted overdose).

INTERPRETATION

Cognitive therapy significantly reduced psychiatric symptoms and seems to be a safe and acceptable alternative for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who have chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs. Evidence-based treatments should be available to these individuals. A larger, definitive trial is needed.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (brief versus standard duration) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia is a psychotherapeutic approach that establishes links between thoughts, emotions and behaviours and challenges dysfunctional thoughts. There is some evidence to suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis (CBTp) might be an effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. There are however, limitations in its provision due to available resource and training issues. One way to tackle this issue might be to offer a brief version of CBTp.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of brief CBTp (6 to 10 regular sessions given in less than 4 months and using a manual) for people with schizophrenia compared with standard CBTp (12 to 20 regular sessions given in 4 to 6 months and using a manual).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (August 21, 2013) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials. We also contacted experts in the field regarding brief CBTp studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving adults with schizophrenia or related disorders, comparing brief cognitive behavioural therapy for people with psychosis versus standard CBTp.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only seven studies which used a brief version of CBTp, but no study compared brief CBTp with CBTp of standard duration. No studies could be included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently there is no literature available to compare brief with standard CBTp for people with schizophrenia. We cannot, therefore, conclude whether brief CBTp is as effective, less effective or even more effective than standard courses of the same therapy. This lack of evidence for brief CBTp has serious implications for research and practice. Well planned, conducted and reported randomised trials are indicated.

Schizophrenia--time to commit to policy change

Care and outcomes for people with schizophrenia have improved in recent years, but further progress is needed to help more individuals achieve an independent and fulfilled life. This report sets out the current need, informs policy makers and all relevant stakeholders who influence care quality, and supports their commitment to creating a better future. The authors recommend the following policy actions, based on research evidence, stakeholder consultation, and examples of best practice worldwide. (1) Provide an evidence-based, integrated care package for people with schizophrenia that addresses their mental and physical health needs. (2) Provide support for people with schizophrenia to enter and to remain in their community, and develop mechanisms to help guide them through the complex benefit and employment systems. (3) Provide concrete support, information, and educational programs to families and carers on how to enhance care for an individual living with schizophrenia in a manner that entails minimal disruption to their lives. (4) All stakeholders, including organizations that support people living with schizophrenia, should be consulted to regularly revise, update, and improve policy on the management of schizophrenia. (5) Provide support, which is proportionate to the impact of the disease, for research and development of new treatments. (6) Establish adequately funded, ongoing, and regular awareness-raising campaigns that form an integral part of routine plans of action. Implementation of the above recommendations will require engagement by every stakeholder, but with commitment from all, change can be achieved.

Advancing psychotherapy and evidence-based psychological interventions

Psychological models of mental disorders guide research into psychological and environmental factors that elicit and maintain mental disorders as well as interventions to reduce them. This paper addresses four areas. (1) Psychological models of mental disorders have become increasingly transdiagnostic, focusing on core cognitive endophenotypes of psychopathology from an integrative cognitive psychology perspective rather than offering explanations for unitary mental disorders. It is argued that psychological interventions for mental disorders will increasingly target specific cognitive dysfunctions rather than symptom-based mental disorders as a result. (2) Psychotherapy research still lacks a comprehensive conceptual framework that brings together the wide variety of findings, models and perspectives. Analysing the state-of-the-art in psychotherapy treatment research, "component analyses" aiming at an optimal identification of core ingredients and the mechanisms of change is highlighted as the core need towards improved efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy, and improved translation to routine care. (3) In order to provide more effective psychological interventions to children and adolescents, there is a need to develop new and/or improved psychotherapeutic interventions on the basis of developmental psychopathology research taking into account knowledge of mediators and moderators. Developmental neuroscience research might be instrumental to uncover associated aberrant brain processes in children and adolescents with mental health problems and to better examine mechanisms of their correction by means of psychotherapy and psychological interventions. (4) Psychotherapy research needs to broaden in terms of adoption of large-scale public health strategies and treatments that can be applied to more patients in a simpler and cost-effective way. Increased research on efficacy and moderators of Internet-based treatments and e-mental health tools (e.g. to support "real time" clinical decision-making to prevent treatment failure or relapse) might be one promising way forward.

Auditory verbal hallucinations as atypical inner speech monitoring, and the potential of neurostimulation as a treatment option

•

We discuss ‘inner speech’ theories of auditory verbal hallucinations.

•

Atypical self-monitoring may lead to the experience of inner speech as external.

•

We summarize research into the use of neurostimulation to treat hallucinations.

•

Effects of neurostimulation may be due to modulation of self-monitoring networks.

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) are the experience of hearing voices in the absence of any speaker, often associated with a schizophrenia diagnosis. Prominent cognitive models of AVHs suggest they may be the result of inner speech being misattributed to an external or non-self source, due to atypical self- or reality monitoring. These arguments are supported by studies showing that people experiencing AVHs often show an externalising bias during monitoring tasks, and neuroimaging evidence which implicates superior temporal brain regions, both during AVHs and during tasks that measure verbal self-monitoring performance. Recently, efficacy of noninvasive neurostimulation techniques as a treatment option for AVHs has been tested. Meta-analyses show a moderate effect size in reduction of AVH frequency, but there has been little attempt to explain the therapeutic effect of neurostimulation in relation to existing cognitive models. This article reviews inner speech models of AVHs, and argues that a possible explanation for reduction in frequency following treatment may be modulation of activity in the brain regions involving the monitoring of inner speech.

Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse

BACKGROUND

Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update (2013), the Trials Search Co-ordinator of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (July 2012), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific databases. The principal authors conducted two further searches (8 October 2012 and 15 January 2013) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. A separate search for trials of contingency management was completed as this was an additional intervention category for this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions for substance misuse with standard care in people with serious mental illness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated standard estimates of relative risk (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) between groups. For all meta-analyses we pooled data using a random-effects model. Using the GRADE approach, we identified seven patient-centred outcomes and assessed the quality of evidence for these within each comparison.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 trials with a total of 3165 participants. Evaluation of long-term integrated care included four RCTs (n = 735). We found no significant differences on loss to treatment (n = 603, 3 RCTs, RR 1.09 CI 0.82 to 1.45, low quality of evidence), death by 3 years (n = 421, 2 RCTs, RR 1.18 CI 0.39 to 3.57, low quality of evidence), alcohol use (not in remission at 36 months) (n = 143, 1 RCT, RR 1.15 CI 0.84 to 1.56,low quality of evidence), substance use (n = 85, 1 RCT, RR 0.89 CI 0.63 to 1.25, low quality of evidence), global assessment of functioning (n = 171, 1 RCT, MD 0.7 CI 2.07 to 3.47, low quality of evidence), or general life satisfaction (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD 0.02 higher CI 0.28 to 0.32, moderate quality of evidence).For evaluation of non-integrated intensive case management with usual treatment (4 RCTs, n = 163) we found no statistically significant difference for loss to treatment at 12 months (n = 134, 3 RCTs, RR 1.21 CI 0.73 to 1.99, very low quality of evidence).Motivational interviewing plus cognitive behavioural therapy compared to usual treatment (7 RCTs, total n = 878) did not reveal any advantage for retaining participants at 12 months (n = 327, 1 RCT, RR 0.99 CI 0.62 to 1.59, low quality of evidence) or for death (n = 493, 3 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.22 to 2.41, low quality of evidence), and no benefit for reducing substance use (n = 119, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.22 to 0.6, low quality of evidence), relapse (n = 36, 1 RCT, RR 0.5 CI 0.24 to 1.04, very low quality of evidence) or global functioning (n = 445, 4 RCTs, MD 1.24 CI 1.86 to 4.34, very low quality of evidence).Cognitive behavioural therapy alone compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 152) showed no significant difference for losses from treatment at 3 months (n = 152, 2 RCTs, RR 1.12 CI 0.44 to 2.86, low quality of evidence). No benefits were observed on measures of lessening cannabis use at 6 months (n = 47, 1 RCT, RR 1.30 CI 0.79 to 2.15, very low quality of evidence) or mental state (n = 105, 1 RCT, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale MD 0.52 CI -0.78 to 1.82, low quality of evidence).We found no advantage for motivational interviewing alone compared with usual treatment (8 RCTs, n = 509) in reducing losses to treatment at 6 months (n = 62, 1 RCT, RR 1.71 CI 0.63 to 4.64, very low quality of evidence), although significantly more participants in the motivational interviewing group reported for their first aftercare appointment (n = 93, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 CI 0.53 to 0.9). Some differences, favouring treatment, were observed in abstaining from alcohol (n = 28, 1 RCT, RR 0.36 CI 0.17 to 0.75, very low quality of evidence) but not other substances (n = 89, 1 RCT, RR -0.07 CI -0.56 to 0.42, very low quality of evidence), and no differences were observed in mental state (n = 30, 1 RCT, MD 0.19 CI -0.59 to 0.21, very low quality of evidence).We found no significant differences for skills training in the numbers lost to treatment by 12 months (n = 94, 2 RCTs, RR 0.70 CI 0.44 to 1.1, very low quality of evidence).We found no differences for contingency management compared with usual treatment (2 RCTs, n = 206) in numbers lost to treatment at 3 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 1.65 CI 1.18 to 2.31, low quality of evidence), number of stimulant positive urine tests at 6 months (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.83 CI 0.65 to 1.06, low quality of evidence) or hospitalisations (n = 176, 1 RCT, RR 0.21 CI 0.05 to 0.93, low quality of evidence).We were unable to summarise all findings due to skewed data or because trials did not measure the outcome of interest. In general, evidence was rated as low or very low due to high or unclear risks of bias because of poor trial methods, or poorly reported methods, and imprecision due to small sample sizes, low event rates and wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We included 32 RCTs and found no compelling evidence to support any one psychosocial treatment over another for people to remain in treatment or to reduce substance use or improve mental state in people with serious mental illnesses. Furthermore, methodological difficulties exist which hinder pooling and interpreting results. Further high quality trials are required which address these concerns and improve the evidence in this important area.

Cognitive behaviour therapy for psychotic symptoms: a randomized controlled effectiveness trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is currently a recommended form of psychosocial treatment for persons suffering from persistent psychotic symptoms. It has been argued that effect sizes from efficacy studies cannot be generalized to real clinical settings.

AIMS

Our aim was to evaluate whether the positive results from randomized controlled trials conducted by experts could be replicated in clinical setting with a heterogeneous sample of patients with psychotic disorder.

METHOD

Patients referred to the study were either randomized to CBTp+TAU (the treatment group) or to a waiting-list group, only receiving TAU. The patients were assessed on different outcome measures such as the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS), and the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS), at pretreatment, at posttreatment (6 months), and at 12 months follow-up. In total, 45 patients participated in the study.

RESULTS

The results showed that 20 sessions of CBTp performed significantly better than the waiting list controls with respect to the global score on the BPRS, the delusional scale on the PSYRATS, and the GAF symptom score at posttreatment. At 12 months follow-up only the GAF symptom score remained significantly changed for the total sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that CBTp delivered by non-experts in routine clinical settings can produce improvements in positive psychotic symptoms, and also that some of these improvements can be maintained at one year follow-up.

Psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia

The current state of the literature regarding psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia is reviewed within the frameworks of the recovery model of mental health and the expanded stress-vulnerability model. Interventions targeting specific domains of functioning, age groups, stages of illness, and human service system gaps are classified as evidence-based practices or promising practices according to the extent to which their efficacy is currently supported by meta-analyses and individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Evidence-based practices include assertive community treatment (ACT), cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for psychosis, cognitive remediation, family psychoeducation, illness self-management training, social skills training, and supported employment. Promising practices include cognitive adaptive therapy, CBT for posttraumatic stress disorder, first-episode psychosis intervention, healthy lifestyle interventions, integrated treatment for co-occurring disorders, interventions targeting older individuals, peer support services, physical disease management, prodromal stage intervention, social cognition training, supported education, and supported housing. Implications and future directions are discussed.