Open-label study of cognitive behavioural therapy for individuals with at-risk mental state: Feasibility in the Japanese clinical setting

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical High Risk for Psychosis: A Systematic Review

A key issue in both research and clinical work with youth at clinical high risk (CHR) of psychosis is that there are clearly heterogenous clinical outcomes in addition to the development of psychosis. Thus, it is important to capture the psychopathologic outcomes of the CHR group and develop a core outcomes assessment set that may help in dissecting the heterogeneity and aid progress toward new treatments. In assessing psychopathology and often poor social and role functioning, we may be missing the important perspectives of the CHR individuals themselves. It is important to consider the perspectives of youth at CHR by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This systematic review of PROMs in CHR was conducted based on a comprehensive search of several databases and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Sixty-four publications were included in the review examining PROMs for symptoms, functioning, quality of life, self-perceptions, stress, and resilience. Typically, PROMs were not the primary focus of the studies reviewed. The PROMs summarized here fit with results published elsewhere in the literature based on interviewer measures. However, very few of the measures used were validated for CHR or for youth. There are several recommendations for determining a core set of PROMs for use with CHR.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and uncontrolled effectiveness and economic studies

OBJECTIVE

Many people with psychotic experiences do not develop psychotic disorders, yet those who seek help demonstrate high clinical complexity and poor outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences.

METHOD

We searched 13 databases for studies of psychological interventions for adults with psychotic experiences, but not psychotic disorders. Our outcomes were the proportion of participants remitting from psychotic experiences (primary); changes in positive and negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning, distress, and quality of life; and economic outcomes (secondary). We analysed results using multilevel random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 reports met inclusion criteria. In general, there was no strong evidence for the superiority of any one intervention. Five studies reported on our primary outcome, though only two reports provided randomised controlled trial evidence that psychological intervention (specifically, cognitive behavioural therapy) promoted remission from psychotic experiences. For secondary outcomes, we could only meta-analyse trials of cognitive behavioural therapy. We found that cognitive behavioural therapy was more effective than treatment as usual for reducing distress (pooled standardised mean difference: -0.24; 95% confidence interval = [-0.37, -0.10]), but no more effective than the control treatment for improving any other outcome. Individual reports indicated that cognitive behavioural therapy, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, sleep cognitive behavioural therapy, systemic therapy, cognitive remediation therapy, and supportive treatments improved at least one clinical or functional outcome. Four reports included economic evaluations, which suggested cognitive behavioural therapy may be cost-effective compared with treatment as usual.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analytic findings were primarily null, with the exception that cognitive behavioural therapy may reduce the distress associated with psychotic experiences. Our analyses were limited by scarcity of studies, small samples and variable study quality. Several intervention frameworks showed preliminary evidence of positive outcomes; however, the paucity of consistent evidence for clinical and functional improvement highlights a need for further research into psychological treatments for psychotic experiences.

PROSPERO PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016033869.