Group CBT for psychosis: A longitudinal, controlled trial with inpatients

Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Recovery From Psychosis: Protocol for a Single-Group Waitlist Trial

BACKGROUND

Psychological interventions, along with antipsychotic medications, are recommended for adults diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. While initially designed to mitigate positive symptoms, psychological interventions targeting personal recovery were developed and aligned with the recovery framework that many mental health services have adopted. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for psychosis is one such intervention that shows promise when delivered in an individual format. There is preliminary evidence that ACT for psychosis in a group format improves recovery.

OBJECTIVE

This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the "Recovery ACT" group program on personal recovery among adults living with a psychotic disorder.

METHODS

Our unfunded study is a multiagency, prospective, nonrandomized, waitlist control, single-group trial of the Recovery ACT group program. The program involves 7 weekly group sessions of 90 minutes duration and a 90-minute booster session held 1 month later. We intend to recruit 160 adults living with a psychotic disorder who enroll in a group that is offered as a routine clinical service at participating public mental health services in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The 4 assessment time points are 4-6 weeks before the start of the group program, at the start of the group program, at the end of the group program, and at the booster session. There is an optional midgroup assessment and follow-up study. The primary outcome is personal recovery. Secondary outcomes include participants' well-being and psychological flexibility processes. Qualitative data are also collected from participants and facilitators.

RESULTS

Recruitment began in September 2019 and is ongoing until 2024, subsequent to a 24-month disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of the submission of this paper, 93 participants consented to the evaluation, 65 completed T1 measures, and 40 had a complete data set for the proposed analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Recovery ACT group program on personal recovery for adults living with a psychotic disorder. Findings will contribute to knowledge about psychosocial interventions for adults living with psychosis. This trial may also serve as an example of a partnership between clinicians and academics that can facilitate the translation of research into practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000223932; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12620000223932.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/49849.

Sequential mixed method evaluation of the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis stepped care

Background

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is recommended by national treatment guidelines yet remains widely inaccessible in the U.S. A stepped care model, favored and feasible for other scarce interventions, may improve access to CBTp.

Methods

We employed an exploratory sequential mixed method design inclusive of two distinct phases to quantitatively evaluate the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of CBTp Stepped Care (CBTp-SC) among practitioners who were trained in low-intensity CBTp (Step 1), Group-Administered CBTp (Step 2), and Formulation-based CBTp (Step 3). In Phase 1, we queried respondents using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and the Feasibility of Intervention Measure to ascertain perceptions of these leading indicators of implementation success. In Phase 2, we conducted focus groups with CBTp-SC-trained practitioners (n = 10) and administrators (n = 2) from 2 of the 4 Phase 1 study sites to evaluate the theoretical assumptions of stepped care and to better understand key barriers and facilitators.

Results

Forty-six practitioners trained in all three levels of CBTp-SC completed the online survey in Phase 1. All participants were employed by a community mental health agency currently sustaining CBTp-SC. Respondents endorsed high levels of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness for the CBTp-SC model. We found evidence to suggest that licensed practitioners and Step 3 practitioners perceived formulation-based CBTp as more appropriate for their clients. In Phase 2, six themes emerged which affirmed the utility of the model for stakeholders, supported stepped care theoretical assumptions, and revealed key areas for improvement.

Conclusions

Early adopters of CBTp-SC in the U.S. perceive it to be acceptable, feasible, and appropriate in community mental health care settings. Practitioners and administrators identified training and implementation barriers, including the importance of organizational readiness, a CBTp coordinator role, and a desire to adapt the intervention. These early findings will facilitate iterative refinement of the stepped care model for U.S. public behavioral health agencies. Additional research is needed to explore perceptions and clinical outcomes among CBTp service users.

Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Schizophrenia is a disabling psychotic disorder characterised by positive symptoms of delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech and behaviour; and negative symptoms such as affective flattening and lack of motivation. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological intervention that aims to change the way in which a person interprets and evaluates their experiences, helping them to identify and link feelings and patterns of thinking that underpin distress. CBT models targeting symptoms of psychosis (CBTp) have been developed for many mental health conditions including schizophrenia. CBTp has been suggested as a useful add-on therapy to medication for people with schizophrenia. While CBT for people with schizophrenia was mainly developed as an individual treatment, it is expensive and a group approach may be more cost-effective. Group CBTp can be defined as a group intervention targeting psychotic symptoms, based on the cognitive behavioural model. In group CBTp, people work collaboratively on coping with distressing hallucinations, analysing evidence for their delusions, and developing problem-solving and social skills. However, the evidence for effectiveness is far from conclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate efficacy and acceptability of group CBT applied to psychosis compared with standard care or other psychosocial interventions, for people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

SEARCH METHODS

On 10 February 2021, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registries. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews and contacted experts in the field for supplemental data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials allocating adults with schizophrenia to receive either group CBT for schizophrenia, compared with standard care, or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We complied with Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 24 studies (1900 participants). All studies compared group CBTp with treatments that a person with schizophrenia would normally receive in a standard mental health service (standard care) or any other psychosocial intervention (group or individual). None of the studies compared group CBTp with individual CBTp. Overall risk of bias within the trials was moderate to low. We found no studies reporting data for our primary outcome of clinically important change. With regard to numbers of participants leaving the study early, group CBTp has little or no effect compared to standard care or other psychosocial interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.59; studies = 13, participants = 1267; I2 = 9%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp may have some advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions for overall mental state at the end of treatment for endpoint scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total (MD -3.73, 95% CI -4.63 to -2.83; studies = 12, participants = 1036; I2 = 5%; low-certainty evidence). Group CBTp seems to have little or no effect on PANSS positive symptoms (MD -0.45, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.40; studies =8, participants = 539; I2 = 0%) and on PANSS negative symptoms scores at the end of treatment (MD -0.73, 95% CI -1.68 to 0.21; studies = 9, participants = 768; I2 = 65%). Group CBTp seems to have an advantage over standard care or other psychosocial interventions on global functioning measured by Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF; MD -3.61, 95% CI -6.37 to -0.84; studies = 5, participants = 254; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), Personal and Social Performance Scale (PSP; MD 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.60; studies = 1, participants = 100), and Social Disability Screening Schedule (SDSS; MD -1.27, 95% CI -2.46 to -0.08; studies = 1, participants = 116). Service use data were equivocal with no real differences between treatment groups for number of participants hospitalised (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.60; studies = 3, participants = 235; I2 = 34%). There was no clear difference between group CBTp and standard care or other psychosocial interventions endpoint scores on depression and quality of life outcomes, except for quality of life measured by World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) Psychological domain subscale (MD -4.64, 95% CI -9.04 to -0.24; studies = 2, participants = 132; I2 = 77%). The studies did not report relapse or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Group CBTp appears to be no better or worse than standard care or other psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in terms of leaving the study early, service use and general quality of life. Group CBTp seems to be more effective than standard care or other psychosocial interventions on overall mental state and global functioning scores. These results may not be widely applicable as each study had a low sample size. Therefore, no firm conclusions concerning the efficacy of group CBTp for people with schizophrenia can currently be made. More high-quality research, reporting useable and relevant data is needed.

Psychological interventions for personal stigma of patients with schizophrenia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Trials to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for personal stigma in patients with schizophrenia are controversial, inconclusive, and limited. Using a systematic review and network meta-analysis, this study aimed to compare the effect of different psychological interventions for reducing personal stigma in patients with schizophrenia both direct and indirect.

METHODS

Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase, Ovid Medline, CNKI, Wanfang, CBM, and Weipu. The focus of this network meta-analysis was on comparing the effects of various psychological interventions for reducing personal stigma in patients with schizophrenia. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) of personal stigma outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to determine the efficacy. Inconsistency test, network map, surface under the cumulative rankings curve (SUCRA), comparison-adjusted funnel plot, and sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs involving 1,749 participants and nine psychological interventions were included. In terms of short-term efficacy, group self-assertiveness training ranked as most likely to reduce personal stigma (SUCRA: 97.0%, SMD: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.23), followed by group psychoeducation programs (SUCRA: 60.1%, SMD: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.55). These two interventions were significantly more effective than the treatment as usual.

CONCLUSIONS

Group self-assertiveness training and psychoeducation programs with higher ranks in short-term efficacy might be favorable to reduce personal stigma in patients with schizophrenia. However, the quality of evidence for pairwise comparison was rated as "very low" to "low" according to the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. Further longitudinal studies with larger well-designed multicentric RCTs are needed to verify the efficacy of long-term outcomes.

A systematic review of adherence to group interventions in psychosis: do people attend?

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports the use of group therapy for symptom reduction and improving functioning in people with psychosis. However, research guidelines highlight the importance of establishing the feasibility of interventions. Adherence is an important indicator of feasibility and an essential step in supporting the development of the evidence base for group interventions. This review aims to estimate adherence, and possible barriers and facilitators, to psychotherapeutic groups in people with psychosis.

METHODS

Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for cross-referencing terms related to group therapy and psychosis. Studies were assessed against inclusion criteria and methodological quality was evaluated. Data wasextracted from each paper including the average session attendance, demographic, clinical, study and therapy-related characteristics and the impact of these on adherence levels evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine original research papers were included, reporting on 52 independent studies which consisted of 66 therapy groups comprised of 2109 participants. Average adherence was 76.4% (s.d. = 17.4). Adherence was improved by receiving incentives and was higher in participants of older age. Study sample size was inversely associated with adherence levels. Study quality was variable with approximately 61.5% found to be at risk of bias. The results support the feasibility of group therapy and suggest that adherence in people with psychosis is not dissimilar to those for people experiencing common mental health difficulties. These findings, alongside efficacy evidence, support the use of group interventions in people with psychosis but also highlight the need for further high-quality research on the efficacy for these approaches.

Overcoming barriers to implementing ward-based psychosocial interventions in acute inpatient mental health settings: A meta-synthesis

BACKGROUND

The culture of acute mental health wards is often dominated by medical models of care despite some patient dissatisfaction with care in these settings and a demand for increased access to psychosocial interventions. Research has found that psychosocial interventions can improve a number of patient and staff outcomes, however, implementation within these settings is often challenging.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the barriers and facilitators to implementing psychosocial interventions on acute wards, in order to develop a list of recommendations for embedding psychosocial interventions within the ward culture in acute settings.

METHODS

Databases were systematically searched using search terms related to acute mental health wards and psychosocial intervention implementation from inception to December 2019. Thirty-nine studies (forty-three papers) that explored the implementation of psychosocial interventions on adult acute mental health wards using qualitative methods met inclusion criteria. Data relating to barriers and facilitators to implementing psychosocial interventions extracted from the results sections of the papers were synthesised using the COM-B model.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that to address barriers to the implementation of psychosocial interventions, services should provide clear information to patients regarding the benefits of engagement, and additional training for staff. A shift in ward culture is required and can be achieved through the recruitment of empathic implementers, together with providing staff with protected time for delivery of psychosocial interventions with clear accountability for intervention delivery through the provision of clearly defined roles.

Evaluation of the CORE-10 to assess psychological distress in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Women experience diverse symptoms of mental ill-health in pregnancy, yet measures usually only assess depression or anxiety. Measures may, therefore, miss out on identifying women experiencing distress.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine the validity and reliability of the CORE-10: a short measure with broad coverage of symptoms of distress and associated functioning, in pregnant women.

METHODS

366 women 26-38 weeks pregnant completed online measures of distress (CORE-10), depression (Whooley questions), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-2), and a single item measuring worry about psychological health. We examined convergent and factorial validity and concordance rates of the measures.

RESULTS

Levels of distress were high, with anxiety the most reported symptom. The CORE-10 showed good convergent validity. A two-factor structure representing 'symptoms' and 'ways of coping' best fit this sample. Internal reliability of the symptoms' factor was good.

DISCUSSION

The self-selected online sample may not be representative of pregnant women in the third trimester and a diagnostic interview was not used. Based on this validation study, the CORE-10 potentially offers an assessment of a broad range of symptoms of postnatal distress within the confines of a measure brief enough to be usable in clinical settings. Further validation is needed.

Stepped Care as an Implementation and Service Delivery Model for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Psychosis

Cognitive behavioral therapy for schizophrenia spectrum disorders is an evidence-based treatment that is recommended by United States schizophrenia treatment guidelines. Based on recent estimates, only 0.3% of individuals with a primary psychotic disorder are able to access this treatment in the United States. Stepped care interventions have shown promise as an applied treatment delivery model in other settings and for other psychotherapeutic interventions. The current paper describes how the stepped care model can be applied to CBT for psychosis in the US to increase access to the intervention in community mental health settings by leveraging the multidisciplinary team.

Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychosocial treatment that aims to re-mediate distressing emotional experiences or dysfunctional behaviour by changing the way in which a person interprets and evaluates the experience or cognates on its consequence and meaning. This approach helps to link the person's feelings and patterns of thinking which underpin distress. CBT is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an add-on treatment for people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. This review is also part of a family of Cochrane CBT reviews for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care compared with standard care alone for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (up to March 6, 2017). This register is compiled by systematic searches of major resources (including AMED, BIOSIS CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and registries of clinical trials) and their monthly updates, handsearches, grey literature, and conference proceedings, with no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records into the register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or related disorders, which compared adding CBT to standard care with standard care given alone. Outcomes of interest included relapse, rehospitalisation, mental state, adverse events, social functioning, quality of life, and satisfaction with treatment.We included studies fulfilling the predefined inclusion criteria and reporting useable data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Where possible, we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data and mean difference (MD) and its 95% confidence interval for continuous data. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

This review now includes 60 trials with 5,992 participants, all comparing CBT added to standard care with standard care alone. Results for the main outcomes of interest (all long term) showed no clear difference between CBT and standard care for relapse (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00; participants = 1538; studies = 13, low-quality evidence). Two trials reported global state improvement. More participants in the CBT groups showed clinically important improvement in global state (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; participants = 82; studies = 2 , very low-quality evidence). Five trials reported mental state improvement. No differences in mental state improvement were observed (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.02; participants = 501; studies = 5, very low-quality evidence). In terms of safety, adding CBT to standard care may reduce the risk of having an adverse event (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.72; participants = 146; studies = 2, very low-quality evidence) but appears to have no effect on long-term social functioning (MD 0.56, 95% CI -2.64 to 3.76; participants = 295; studies = 2, very low-quality evidence, nor on long-term quality of life (MD -3.60, 95% CI -11.32 to 4.12; participants = 71; study = 1, very low-quality evidence). It also has no effect on long-term satisfaction with treatment (measured as 'leaving the study early') (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12; participants = 1945; studies = 19, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Relative to standard care alone, adding CBT to standard care appears to have no effect on long-term risk of relapse. A very small proportion of the available evidence indicated CBT plus standard care may improve long term global state and may reduce the risk of adverse events. Whether adding CBT to standard care leads to clinically important improvement in patients' long-term mental state, quality of life, and social function remains unclear. Satisfaction with care (measured as number of people leaving the study early) was no higher for participants receiving CBT compared to participants receiving standard care. It should be noted that although much research has been carried out in this area, the quality of evidence available is poor - mostly low or very low quality and we still cannot make firm conclusions until more high quality data are available.

A systematic scoping review of psychological therapies for psychosis within acute psychiatric in-patient settings

BACKGROUND

People with psychotic disorders account for most acute admissions to psychiatric wards. Psychological therapies are a treatment adjunct to standard medication and nursing care, but the evidence base for such therapies within in-patient settings is unclear.AimsTo conduct a systematic scoping review of the current evidence base for psychological therapies for psychosis delivered within acute in-patient settings (PROSPERO: CRD42015025623).

METHOD

All study designs, and therapy models, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, ProQuest, conference abstracts and trial registries.

RESULTS

We found 65 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the review, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The majority of studies evaluated cognitive-behavioural interventions. Quality was variable across all study types. The RCTs were mostly small (n<25 in the treatment arm), and many had methodological limitations including poorly described randomisation methods, inadequate allocation concealment and non-masked outcome assessments. We found studies used a wide range of different outcome measures, and relatively few studies reported affective symptoms or recovery-based outcomes. Many studies described adaptations to treatment delivery within in-patient settings, including increased frequency of sessions, briefer interventions and use of single-session formats.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, there is a clear need to improve methodological rigour within in-patient research. Interpretation of the current evidence base is challenging given the wide range of different therapies, outcome measures and models of delivery described in the literature.Declaration of interestNone.

The Meaning of Voices in Understanding and Treating Psychosis: Moving Towards Intervention Informed by Collaborative Formulation

From a medical perspective, hearing voices is perceived as a symptom of mental illness and their content as largely irrelevant. The effectiveness of antipsychotic medication has made it central to the treatment of psychosis. However pharmacological treatment alone is rarely sufficient for this disabling condition. This review examined the feasibility of formulating an understanding of the meaning of voices in psychosis to inform intervention. Examination of the literature demonstrated the need for a paradigm shift to a recovery model, drawing on biopsychosocial factors in formulating an understanding of the meaning of voices in the context of a person's life. Providing the opportunity to talk about their experiences may aid the development of an interpersonally coherent narrative representing opportunities for psychological growth. Findings have implications for treatment planning and assessment of outcome. Collaborative formulation regarding the subjective meaning of voices may aid in understanding their development and maintenance and guide intervention. Hearing voices with reduced negative effects on wellbeing and functioning may reduce distress and improve quality of life even in the presence of voices. CFT, CBT, Relating Therapy and Open Dialogue may be effective in applying these principles. Findings are limited by the lack of controlled studies. Further controlled studies and qualitative explorations of individual experiences are recommended.