Understanding young peoples' and family members' views of treatment for first episode psychosis in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS)

Family members' experiences of seeking help for a young person with symptoms associated with the psychosis spectrum: A narrative review and synthesis

Young people often rely on family carers to access support for their mental health. However, stigma can be a barrier to help seeking for young people and families. Little research has been undertaken with young people who experience highly stigmatised symptoms, such as psychosis spectrum symptoms, and even less research has been conducted with parents and carers, meaning barriers to help go unchallenged. Therefore, this narrative review aimed to explore stories of family experiences of seeking help for young people with symptoms associated with the psychosis spectrum. Sources searched were PsycINFO and PubMed. Reference lists of the selected papers were also cross-checked to ensure the search had not missed potential papers for inclusion. Searches returned 139 results, of which 12 were identified for inclusion. A narrative analytic approach was adopted to synthesise qualitative findings to provide a nuanced interpretation of help-seeking experiences. The narrative synthesis provided an opportunity to identify differences, similarities, and patterns across the studies to tell a cumulative emancipatory narrative of family experiences of seeking help for psychosis spectrum symptoms. Help-seeking experiences had a relational impact on families, with stress adding to conflict and anxieties inhibiting hopefulness, although families could emerge stronger and assertively with compassionate support.

Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.

Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in people with schizophrenia when provided in combination with antipsychotic medication. It remains unclear whether CBT could be safely and effectively offered in the absence of concomitant antipsychotic therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of CBT for schizophrenia when administered without concomitant pharmacological treatment with antipsychotics.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with schizophrenia comparing CBT without antipsychotics to standard care, standard care without antipsychotics, or the combination of CBT and antipsychotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. We contacted study authors for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured with a validated rating scale. Key secondary outcomes were specific symptoms of schizophrenia, relapse, service use, number of participants leaving the study early, functioning, quality of life, and number of participants actually receiving antipsychotics during the trial. We also assessed behaviour, adverse effects, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 4 studies providing data for 300 participants (average age 21.94 years). The mean sample size was 75 participants (range 61 to 90 participants). Study duration was between 26 and 39 weeks for the intervention period and 26 to 104 weeks for the follow-up period. Three studies employed a blind rater, while one study was triple-blind. All analyses included data from a maximum of three studies. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. For the primary outcome overall symptoms of schizophrenia, results showed a difference favouring CBT without antipsychotics when compared to no specific treatment at long term (> 1 year mean difference measured with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS MD) -14.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.75 to -1.79, 1 RCT, n = 34). There was no difference between CBT without antipsychotics compared with antipsychotics (up to 12 months PANSS MD 3.38, 95% CI -2.38 to 9.14, 2 RCTs, n = 63) (very low-certainty evidence) or compared with CBT in combination with antipsychotics (up to 12 months standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.65, 3 RCTs, n = 125). Compared with no specific treatment, CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a reduction in overall symptoms (as described above) and negative symptoms (PANSS negative MD -4.06, 95% CI -7.50 to -0.62, 1 RCT, n = 34) at longer than 12 months. It was also associated with a lower duration of hospital stay (number of days in hospital MD -22.45, 95% CI -28.82 to -16.08, 1 RCT, n = 74) and better functioning (Personal and Social Performance Scale MD -12.42, 95% CI -22.75 to -2.09, 1 RCT, n = 40, low-certainty evidence) at up to 12 months. We did not find a difference between CBT and antipsychotics in any of the investigated outcomes, with the exception of adverse events measured with the Antipsychotic Non-Neurological Side-Effects Rating Scale (ANNSERS) at both 6 and 12 months (MD -4.94, 95% CI -8.60 to -1.28, 2 RCTs, n = 48; MD -6.96, 95% CI -11.55 to -2.37, 2 RCTs, n = 42). CBT without antipsychotics was less effective than CBT combined with antipsychotics in reducing positive symptoms at up to 12 months (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76, 3 RCTs, n = 126). CBT without antipsychotics was associated with a lower number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event in comparison with CBT combined with antipsychotics at up to 12 months (risk ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.80, 1 RCT, n = 39, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review is the first attempt to systematically synthesise the evidence about CBT delivered without medication to people with schizophrenia. The limited number of studies and low to very low certainty of the evidence prevented any strong conclusions. An important limitation in the available studies was that participants in the CBT without medication group (about 35% on average) received antipsychotic treatment, highlighting the challenges of this approach. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to provide additional data on the feasibility and efficacy of CBT without antipsychotics.

"Figuring out how to be normal": Exploring how young people and parents make sense of voice-hearing in the family context

OBJECTIVES

Making sense of voice-hearing-exploring the purpose, cause, and relationship with voices-is seen as therapeutically valuable for adults, but there is a paucity of research with adolescents. Family intervention is recommended for young people, yet little is known about families' perspectives on, or role in, a child's voice-hearing. This study therefore aimed to explore how both young people and parents had made sense of voice-hearing in the family context.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven young people who hear voices (six females, one male, age M = 17 years) and six parents of young people who hear voices (five females, one male). Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis.

RESULTS

The young people struggled to reconcile their voice-hearing experiences within themselves, wanted control, 'normality', and not to let their mental health hold them back. Parents saw the voices as separate to their child, who they were protective of, and came to an acceptance and hope for the future amidst continued uncertainty. Pragmatism, and shame, ran through parents' and young people's accounts. Tensions between them, such as autonomy versus involvement, were also apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

Few participants had made sense of their experiences in any concrete form, yet hope, control, and getting on with their lives were not conditional on having done so. Young people valued the family as a safe, non-enquiring space to be 'normal' and not to talk about their experiences. While all had been challenged by their experiences, an energy and strength ran through their accounts.

Adapting cognitive behavioural therapy for adolescents with psychosis: insights from the Managing Adolescent first episode in psychosis study (MAPS)

Background

Onset of psychosis commonly occurs in adolescence, and long-term prognosis can be poor. There is growing evidence, largely from adult cohorts, that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Psychosis (CBTp) and Family Interventions (FI) can play a role in managing symptoms and difficulties associated with psychosis. However, adolescents have distinct developmental needs that likely impact their engagement and response to talking therapy. There is limited guidance on adapting CBTp to meet the clinical needs of under-eighteens experiencing psychosis.

Method

This educational clinical practice article details learnings from therapists and supervisors working with young people (aged 14-18 years) with psychosis during the Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) randomised clinical treatment trial, supplemented by findings from nested qualitative interviews with young people receiving CBTp.

Results

Suggested are given for tailoring CBTp assessment, formulation and interventions to meet the developmental and clinical needs of adolescents with psychosis. Developmentally appropriate techniques and resources described.

Conclusions

Early indications from MAPS study indicate this developmentally tailored approach is an acceptable, safe and helpful treatment for young people with psychosis. Further research is needed to develop empirically grounded and evaluated CBTp for adolescents.

Young adults' dynamic relationships with their families in early psychosis: Identifying relational strengths and supporting relational agency

OBJECTIVES

Most existing research on the family context of psychosis focuses on the 'burden' of caring for people experiencing psychosis. This research is the first to ask young people experiencing early psychosis to 'map' and describe their experiences and understandings of their family relationships, and how they have related to their psychosis and recovery.

DESIGN

The research took an inductive, multimodal hermeneutic-phenomenological approach (Boden, Larkin & Iyer, 2019, Qual. Res. Psychology, 16, 218-236; Boden & Larkin, 2020, A handbook of visual methods in psychology, 358-375).

METHOD

Ten young adults (18-23), under the care of early intervention in psychosis services in the UK, participated in an innovative relational mapping interview (Boden, Larkin & Iyer, 2018), which invited participants to draw a subjective 'map' of their important relationships. This visual methodology enables subtle, complex, ambivalent, and ambiguous aspects of the participants' experiences to be explored.

RESULTS

Findings explore the participants' accounts of how they love, protect, and care for their families; how they wrestle with family ties as they mature; and their feelings about talking about their mental health with loved ones, which was typically very difficult.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper advances understanding of recovery in psychosis through consideration of the importance of reciprocity, and the identification and nurturance of relational strengths. The capacity of a young person to withdraw or hold back when trying to protect others is understood as an example of relational agency. The possibility for extending strengths-based approaches and family work within the context of early intervention in psychosis services is discussed.

PRACTITIONER POINTS

Young adults experiencing early psychosis may benefit from support to identify their relational strengths and the opportunities they have for reciprocity within their family structures, where appropriate. Relational motivations may be important for a range of behaviours, including social withdrawal and non-communication. Services may benefit from exploring the young person's relational context and subjective meaning-making in regard to these actions. Young adults experiencing early psychosis may benefit from opportunities to make sense of their family dynamics and how this impacts on their recovery. Attachment-based and relationally oriented interventions that increase trust and openness, and reduce feelings of burdensomeness are likely to support family functioning as well as individual recovery.

Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis.

METHODS

We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433.

FINDINGS

Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial.

INTERPRETATION

This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Understanding young peoples' and family members' views of treatment for first episode psychosis in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS)

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence to inform treatment decision-making in adolescents experiencing first episode psychosis (FEP). In the MAPS trial (Managing Adolescent first Episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study), adolescents with FEP received either antipsychotic medication (AP), psychological intervention (PI), or both. We investigated treatment views of young people and family members across each treatment arm of MAPS.

METHODS

Thirteen adolescents participating in MAPS and eighteen family members attended in-depth audio-recorded interviews to discuss trial treatments. Interviews were analysed using inductive Thematic Analysis, identifying salient themes across these accounts.

FINDINGS

Family members in particular reported an urgent need for treatment regardless of type. Both AP and PI were broadly viewed as acceptable treatment approaches, but for differing reasons which participants weighed against a range of concerns. AP were often seen to reduce symptoms of psychosis, though participants expressed concerns about side effects. PI were viewed as interactive treatment approaches that helped improve understanding of psychosis and enhanced coping, although some found PI emotionally and cognitively challenging. Combining treatments was seen to maximise benefits, with a perceived interaction whereby AP facilitated engagement with PI.

INTERPRETATION

Acceptability of and engagement with treatments for FEP may differ between individual young people and their family/carers. In order to be able to offer fully informed choices, and determine an optimum treatment approach for young people with FEP, definitive trial evidence should be established to determine wanted and unwanted treatment impacts.

FUNDING

NIHR HTA programme (project number 15/31/04).

Clinicians' views of treatment types for first episode psychosis delivered in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS)

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' treatment beliefs could affect the feasibility of delivering different treatments in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In MAPS (Managing Adolescent first Episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study), adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) were randomly allocated to receive either antipsychotic medication (AP), psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention [FI]), or both. We conducted a nested qualitative study to investigate clinicians' views of these treatments.

METHODS

Purposive sampling identified seventeen clinicians from CAMHS and Early Intervention services with prescribing responsibilities for 14-18 year olds at three participating MAPS sites. Individual participants were interviewed to examine their views of treatments in the MAPS trial. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive Thematic Analysis.

FINDINGS

Clinicians viewed the decision to refer adolescents to the MAPS trial as requiring careful clinical judgement. Assessment complexity and diagnostic uncertainty had to be balanced against the urgency for treatment to reduce risk and distress. Underlying influences including duty of care and treatment beliefs underpinned decisions. Clinicians consistently valued AP as the primary treatment for FEP, with CBT and/or FI seen as helpful secondary treatment options. Nevertheless, the potential harms of prescribing AP, or not, to such a young population were highlighted as being of concern in treatment decision-making, and fostered reluctance to refer into a RCT.

INTERPRETATION

The design and delivery of RCTs involving young people experiencing FEP should consider the views of responsible clinicians, recognising that perceived treatment urgency, limitations in diagnostic precision, and existing treatment beliefs may influence trial processes.

FUNDING

NIHR HTA programme (project number 15/31/04).