Guided self-help cognitive behavioral intervention for VoicEs (GiVE): study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Effects on voice hearing distress and social functioning of unguided application of a smartphone app - A randomized controlled trial

Background

Temstem is a smartphone app developed with and for clinical voice hearing individuals with the aim to reduce their voice hearing distress and improve social functioning.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial with adult outpatients suffering from distressing and frequent auditory verbal hallucinations (AVH) was conducted. Participants were randomized to unguided 'Temstem+AVH monitoring' or unguided 'AVH monitoring only' (control condition). Assessments were performed at baseline, post-intervention (week 5-6), and follow-up (week 9-10). Primary outcomes were voice hearing distress and social functioning, as measured with Experience Sampling Method (ESM), consisting of multiple daily questionnaires during six days. In addition, voices and mood were self-monitored with help of a daily reflective questionnaire. Analyses were linear regression models (intention-to-treat).

Results

44 Participants were allocated to Temstem and 45 to the control condition. No significant differences between the groups were found on both primary outcomes.

Conclusion

Our results do not support the effectiveness of stand-alone use of Temstem versus symptom monitoring on voice hearing distress or social functioning in voice hearing individuals. In order to potentially improve effectiveness of an mHealth tool in a population of people with frequent and distressing voices, we recommend to involve persons with lived experience in all stages of development and research; to thoroughly test the (technological) usability before performing an RCT; to test whether guidance of a therapist is needed to optimize effectiveness; and to provide prompts to remind the user to actually use the tool.

Increasing access to CBT for psychosis patients: a feasibility, randomised controlled trial evaluating brief, targeted CBT for distressing voices delivered by assistant psychologists (GiVE2)

Background

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is offered to all patients with a psychosis diagnosis. However, only a minority of psychosis patients in England and Wales are offered CBTp. This is attributable, in part, to the resource-intensive nature of CBTp. One response to this problem has been the development of CBTp in brief formats that are targeted at a single symptom and the mechanisms that maintain distress. We have developed a brief form of CBTp for distressing voices and reported preliminary evidence for its effectiveness when delivered by highly trained therapists (clinical psychologists). This study will investigate the delivery of this intervention by a cost-effective workforce of assistant psychologists following a brief training and evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a future, definitive, randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

This is a feasibility study for a pragmatic, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority 1:1:1 RCT comparing a Guided self-help CBT intervention for voices and treatment as usual (GiVE) to Supportive Counselling and treatment as usual (SC) to treatment as usual alone (TAU), recruiting across two sites, with blinded post-treatment and follow-up assessments. A process evaluation will quantitatively and qualitatively explore stakeholder experience.

Discussion

Expected outcomes will include an assessment of the feasibility of conducting a definitive RCT, and data to inform the calculation of its sample size. If evidence from a subsequent, fully powered RCT suggests that GiVE is clinically and cost-effective when delivered by briefly trained assistant psychologists, CBTp offered in these less resource-intensive forms has the potential to generate benefits for individual patients (reduced distress, enhanced recovery and enhanced quality of life), service-level patient benefit (increased access to evidence-based psychological therapies) and economic benefits to the NHS (in terms of the reduced use of mental health inpatient services).

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN registration number: 16166070. Registered on 5 February 2019.

Patient experience of Guided self-help CBT intervention for VoicEs (GiVE) delivered within a pilot randomized controlled trial

Access to cognitive behaviour therapy for those with psychosis (CBTp) remains poor. The most frequently endorsed barrier to implementation is a lack of resources. To improve access to CBTp, we developed a brief form of CBTp that specifically targets voice-related distress. The results of our pilot trial of guided self-help CBT for voices (GiVE) suggest that the therapy is both acceptable and beneficial. The present study aims to explore the subjective patient experience of accessing GiVE in the context of a trial. We interviewed nine trial participants using the Change Interview and a mixed methods approach. Most participants reported at least one positive change that they attributed to GiVE. We extracted five themes: (1) changes that I have noticed; (2) I am not alone; (3) positive therapy experiences; (4) I want more therapy; and (5) helping myself. The themes indicate that participating in the GiVE trial was generally a positive experience. The main areas in which participants experienced changes were improved self-esteem, and the ability to cope with voices. Positive changes were facilitated by embracing and enacting ‘self-help’ and having support both in and out of the therapy sessions. The findings support the use of self-help materials with those distressed by hearing voices, but that support both within and outside the clinical setting can aid engagement and outcomes. Overall, the findings support the continued investigation of GiVE.

Key learning aims

(1)

Differences between self-reported and clinician-rated evaluations of 1-year changes in auditory verbal hallucinations among schizophrenia patients

Auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs) constitute a frequent and distressing symptom of schizophrenia, associated with physical, emotional, and cognitive challenges. Despite their clinical importance, changes in the multiple dimensions of AVHs during treatment have rarely been examined, and subjective views thereof have received minimal attention. Here, we evaluated 87 patients with schizophrenia-related AVHs using the Hamilton Program for Schizophrenia Voices Questionnaire (HPSVQ; a self-report questionnaire) and the Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales-Auditory Hallucination Subscale (PSYRATS-AH; a clinician-rated scale) at baseline and after 6 months and 1 year of treatment. We explored dimensions that changed from the perspectives of both clinicians and patients and the relationships between these perceptions over the year. The test-retest reliabilities of the HPSVQ and PSYRATS-AH were generally fair. Improvements in AVHs were evident over the first 6 months; the PSYRATS-AH revealed a broader range of symptom improvement than did the HPSVQ. The "interference with life" dimension on the HPSVQ was not reduced, but the "disruption to life" score on the PSYRATS-AH was. At both baseline and 6 months, the physical characteristics of AVHs (frequency, duration, and loudness) were significantly correlated with both distress and life interference/disruption; all correlations except that for frequency were reduced at 1 year. The clinician-rated and self-reported personal perspectives on AVHs exhibited both differences and similarities; physical AVH components and subjective distressful experiences changed in different ways in those with chronic, persistent AVHs. The HPSVQ and PSYRATS-AH data were complementary, improving our understanding of the clinical implications of AVHs and subjective patient distress.

Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness

BACKGROUND

Peer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

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.

Psychological interventions to reduce positive symptoms in schizophrenia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Psychological treatments are increasingly regarded as useful interventions for schizophrenia. However, a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence is lacking and the benefit of psychological interventions for patients with current positive symptoms is still debated. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability and tolerability of psychological treatments for positive symptoms of schizophrenia by applying a network meta-analysis approach, that can integrate direct and indirect comparisons. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials of psychological treatments for positive symptoms of schizophrenia, published up to January 10, 2018. We included studies on adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or a related disorder presenting positive symptoms. The primary outcome was change in positive symptoms measured with validated rating scales. We included 53 randomized controlled trials of seven psychological interventions, for a total of 4,068 participants receiving the psychological treatment as add-on to antipsychotics. On average, patients were moderately ill at baseline. The network meta-analysis showed that cognitive behavioural therapy (40 studies) reduced positive symptoms more than inactive control (standardized mean difference, SMD=-0.29; 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.03), treatment as usual (SMD=-0.30; 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.14) and supportive therapy (SMD=-0.47; 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.03). Cognitive behavioural therapy was associated with a higher dropout rate compared with treatment as usual (risk ratio, RR=0.74; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.95). Confidence in the estimates ranged from moderate to very low. The other treatments contributed to the network with a lower number of studies. Results were overall consistent in sensitivity analyses controlling for several factors, including the role of researchers' allegiance and blinding of outcome assessor. Cognitive behavior therapy seems to be effective on positive symptoms in moderately ill patients with schizophrenia, with effect sizes in the lower to medium range, depending on the control condition.

Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment and intervention in a coping-focused intervention for hearing voices (SAVVy): study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment and intervention (EMA/I) show promise for enhancing psychological treatments for psychosis. EMA has the potential to improve assessment and formulation of experiences which fluctuate day-to-day, and EMI may be used to prompt use of therapeutic strategies in daily life. The current study is an examination of these capabilities in the context of a brief, coping-focused intervention for distressing voice hearing experiences.

Methods/design

This is a rater-blinded, pilot randomised controlled trial comparing a four-session intervention in conjunction with use of smartphone EMA/I between sessions, versus treatment-as-usual. The recruitment target is 34 participants with persisting and distressing voice hearing experiences, recruited through a Voices Clinic based in Melbourne, Australia, and via wider advertising. Allocation will be made using minimisation procedure, balancing of the frequency of voices between groups. Assessments are completed at baseline and 8 weeks post-baseline. The primary outcomes of this trial will focus on feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial methodology, with secondary outcomes examining preliminary clinical effects related to overall voice severity, the emotional and functional impact of the voices, and emotional distress.

Discussion

This study offers a highly novel examination of specific smartphone capabilities and their integration with traditional psychological treatment for distressing voices. Such technology has potential to enhance psychological interventions and promote adaptation to distressing experiences.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12617000348358. Registered on 7 March 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2607-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Guided self-help cognitive-behaviour Intervention for VoicEs (GiVE): Results from a pilot randomised controlled trial in a transdiagnostic sample

BACKGROUND

Few patients have access to cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) even though at least 16 sessions of CBTp is recommended in treatment guidelines. Briefer CBTp could improve access as the same number of therapists could see more patients. In addition, focusing on single psychotic symptoms, such as auditory hallucinations ('voices'), rather than on psychosis more broadly, may yield greater benefits.

METHOD

This pilot RCT recruited 28 participants (with a range of diagnoses) from NHS mental health services who were distressed by hearing voices. The study compared an 8-session guided self-help CBT intervention for distressing voices with a wait-list control. Data were collected at baseline and at 12weeks with post-therapy assessments conducted blind to allocation. Voice-impact was the pre-determined primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, wellbeing and recovery. Mechanism measures were self-esteem, beliefs about self, beliefs about voices and voice-relating.

RESULTS

Recruitment and retention was feasible with low study (3.6%) and therapy (14.3%) dropout. There were large, statistically significant between-group effects on the primary outcome of voice-impact (d=1.78; 95% CIs: 0.86-2.70), which exceeded the minimum clinically important difference. Large, statistically significant effects were found on a number of secondary and mechanism measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Large effects on the pre-determined primary outcome of voice-impact are encouraging, and criteria for progressing to a definitive trial are met. Significant between-group effects on measures of self-esteem, negative beliefs about self and beliefs about voice omnipotence are consistent with these being mechanisms of change and this requires testing in a future trial.

Understanding clinician attitudes towards implementation of guided self-help cognitive behaviour therapy for those who hear distressing voices: using factor analysis to test normalisation process theory

BACKGROUND

The Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) has been used to understand the implementation of physical health care interventions. The current study aims to apply the NPT model to a secondary mental health context, and test the model using exploratory factor analysis. This study will consider the implementation of a brief cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) intervention.

METHODS

Mental health clinicians were asked to complete a NPT-based questionnaire on the implementation of a brief CBTp intervention. All clinicians had experience of either working with the target client group or were able to deliver psychological therapies. In total, 201 clinicians completed the questionnaire.

RESULTS

The results of the exploratory factor analysis found partial support for the NPT model, as three of the NPT factors were extracted: (1) coherence, (2) cognitive participation, and (3) reflexive monitoring. We did not find support for the fourth NPT factor (collective action). All scales showed strong internal consistency. Secondary analysis of these factors showed clinicians to generally support the implementation of the brief CBTp intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides strong evidence for the validity of the three NPT factors extracted. Further research is needed to determine whether participants' level of seniority moderates factor extraction, whether this factor structure can be generalised to other healthcare settings, and whether pre-implementation attitudes predict actual implementation outcomes.