Search

Background: There is wide variation in the problems prioritised by people with psychosis in cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp). While research trials and mental health services have often prioritised reduction in psychiatric symptoms, service users may prioritise issues not directly related to psychosis. This discrepancy suggests potential challenges in treatment outcome research. Aims: The present study aimed to examine the types of problems that were recorded on problem lists generated in CBTp trials. Method: Problem and goals lists for 110 participants were extracted from CBTp therapy notes. Subsequently, problems were coded into 23 distinct categories by pooling together items that appeared thematically related. Results: More than half of participants (59.62%) listed a non-psychosis-related priority problem, and 22.12% did not list any psychosis related problems. Chi-square tests indicated there was no difference between participants from early intervention (EI) and other services in terms of priority problem (χ2 = 0.06, p = .804), but that those from EI were more likely to include any psychosis-related problems in their lists (χ2 = 6.66, p = .010). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that psychiatric symptom reduction is not the primary goal of CBTp for most service users, particularly those who are not under the care of EI services. The implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

There is growing clinical interest in addressing relationship dynamics between service-users and their voices. The Talking With Voices (TwV) trial aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of a novel dialogical intervention to reduce distress associated with voices amongst adults diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The single-site, single-blind (rater) randomised controlled trial recruited 50 participants who were allocated 1:1 to treatment as usual (TAU), or TAU plus up to 26 sessions of TwV therapy. Participants were assessed at baseline and again at end of treatment (six-months). The primary outcomes were quantitative and qualitative assessments of feasibility and acceptability. Secondary outcomes involved clinical measures, including targeted instruments for voice-hearing, dissociation, and emotional distress. The trial achieved 100 % of the target sample, 24 of whom were allocated to therapy and 26 to TAU. The trial had high retention (40/50 [80 %] participants at six-months) and high intervention adherence (21/24 [87.5 %] receiving ≥8 sessions). Signals of efficacy were shown in targeted measures of voice-hearing, dissociation, and perceptions of recovery. Analysis on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale indicated that there were no differences in means of general psychosis symptom scores in TwV compared to the control group. There were four serious adverse events in the therapy group and eight in TAU, none of which were related to study proceedings. The trial demonstrates the acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of delivering it under controlled, randomised conditions. An adequately powered definitive trial is necessary to provide robust evidence regarding efficacy evaluation and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN 45308981.

Purpose To present a treatment protocol for delivering Talking With Voices, a novel intervention for people with psychosis that involves dialogical engagement with auditory hallucinations. Method This paper presents a manualized approach to therapy employed in the Talking With Voices trial, a feasibility and acceptability randomized control trial of 50 adult participants. A rationale for following a treatment manual is provided, followed by the theoretical underpinnings of the intervention and its principles and values, including the main tenet that voices can often be understood as dissociated parts of the self which serve a protective function by indicating social-emotional vulnerabilities. The four therapy phases for improving the relationship between the voice-hearer and their voices are outlined: (1) engagement and psychoeducation, (2) creating a formulation, (3) dialoguing with voices, and (4) consolidating outcomes, including key milestones at each phase. Implementation issues are discussed, as well as recommendations for best practice and future research. Results The Talking With Voices treatment protocol indicates that it is feasible to manualize a dissociation-based approach to support service users who are distressed by hearing voices. Conclusion For some individuals, it is possible to engage in productive dialogue with even extremely hostile or distressing voices. Developing coping strategies, creating a formulation, and ultimately establishing a dialogue with voices has the potential to improve the relationship between voice(s) and voice-hearer. Further research is now required to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy. Practitioner points It is feasible to integrate a dissociation model of voice-hearing within a psychological intervention for people with psychosis. Combining psychosocial education, formulation and direct dialogue can be used to facilitate a more peaceful relationship between clients and their voices. Practitioners trained in other therapeutic modalities can draw on existing transferrable skills to dialogue with their clients' voices. The input of those with lived experience of mental health difficulties has an important role in guiding treatment design and delivery.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based psychological interventions to support treatment decision-making capacity (capacity) in psychosis do not currently exist. This study sought to establish whether reducing the extent to which this group form conclusions based on limited evidence, also known as the "jumping-to-conclusions" (JTC) bias, could improve capacity. METHODS: In a randomized controlled open trial, 37 patients aged 16-65 years diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-session intervention designed to reduce the JTC bias (MCT-JTC; adapted from Metacognitive Training [MCT]) or an attention control (AC) condition designed to control for therapist attention, duration, modality, and face validity. Primary outcomes were treatment decision-making capacity measured by the MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) and the jumping-to-conclusions reasoning bias measured by draws to decision on the beads task, each of which were administered by the psychologist delivering the intervention. RESULTS: Those receiving MCT-JTC had large improvements in overall capacity (d = 0.96, P < .05) and appreciation (d = 0.87, P < .05) compared to those receiving AC. Reduction in JTC mediated a large proportion of the effect of group allocation on understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and overall MacCAT-T scores. CONCLUSION: This is the first experimental investigation of the effect of a psychological intervention on treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis. It provides early evidence that reducing the JTC bias is associated with large and rapid improvements in capacity. Due to limited resources, assessments were administered by the researchers delivering the intervention. Results should therefore be considered preliminary and a larger, definitive trial addressing methodological limitations is warranted.

BackgroundThe evidence on factors that may influence treatment decisional capacity (‘capacity’) in psychosis has yet to be comprehensively synthesised, which limits the development of effective strategies to improve or support it.AimsTo determine the direction, magnitude and reliability of the relationship between capacity in psychosis and a range of clinical, demographic and treatment-related factors, thus providing a thorough synthesis of current knowledge.MethodWe conducted a systematic review, meta-analytical and narrative synthesis of factors that help or hinder treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis, assessing the direction, magnitude, significance and reliability of reported associations.ResultsWe identified 23 relevant studies (n= 1823). Psychotic symptoms had small, moderate and strong associations with appreciation, understanding and reasoning respectively. Both verbal cognitive functioning and duration of education had small to moderate correlations with understanding and reasoning. Better capacity was also associated with better insight, better metacognitive ability, higher anxiety and lower perceived coercion. No linear relationship with depression was observed. Interventions linked to improved capacity over time were in-patient care, information simplification, shared decision-making and metacognitive training.ConclusionsAlthough much is known about the role of symptoms and other clinical variables, effective and acceptable psychological interventions to support capacity in this group are lacking.

Introduction : Operating under confirmed Terms of Reference and supported by a signed Statement of Intent, an Integrated Health Committee (IHC) was established between a Local Health District and Primary Health Network to oversee improved integration of services and information between them and other health providers. Under this stewardship, great progress has been made in developing initiatives for a population of 950,000 where locally tailored solutions are delivered balanced with a remit to scale these across this population base. This paper will address the opportunities and barrier of this large-scale and fast-paced health reform and to identify lessons to be learned. Short description of practice change implemented : The Service Model from the IHC has designed around community needs, maximises community participation, harnesses emerging technologies and optimises interagency coordination to address targeted health issues and to facilitate access to a wide range of services and assistance. Aim and theory of change : The aim of the IHC is to strive for a health neighbourhood model in which services are designed to envelope their users, where data is collected and analysed, and technology and shared real-time patient information is available to health care providers to facilitate more integrated and continuous care. Targeted population and stakeholders : The IHC established comprise a range of stakeholders from the Local Health District, Primary Health Network, General Practitioners (GP), senior clinicians, consumers and indirectly with Non-Government Organisations and Local Government. It aims to change the way local residents use traditional health services. The framework conceptualise the governance and support structure to achieve this vision include a strong stakeholders engagement from consumers, health service staff and primary health care workers inclusive of the GP. Timeline : The groups reflect the core integrated care elements and are tasked with identifying and scoping priority models of care and resources required for implementation in order to select suggested areas for action. The partners have acknowledged the importance of articulating a clear vision, provide dedicated resources and the value of working in true partnership with stakeholders. Highlights : The initiatives implemented, under the leadership of the IHC include: - ORAN Park Family Centre - infrastructure - Wollondilly Health Alliance – population and system - Health Pathway – system and infrastructure - Research & Evaluation in integrated care – system These initiatives have been evidenced in filling some of the gaps and issues identified in the region such as improved access to GPs, health service planning in align to population projections and health priorities and connectedness between providers and sharing of clinical information. Conclusions : Integrated care can be implemented successfully in any type of health system and it does not depend on the presence of a single point of control. However, implementation is difficult, and success cannot be achieved quickly. But if the elements and enablers are in place, particularly led by champions, integrated care can work almost anywhere. Discussions : As part of broadening the reach of this endeavour, the IHC has re-engerzing to become an Integrated Care Collaboration operating under a well-defined Governance Framework and Strategy.

An integrated intake, information and intervention service, Triple I (Hub) was evaluated against its goal to be streamlined, co-ordinated and patient focussed. The integrated service co-located six previously disparate services, often accessed by the same patients and healthcare professionals. The service was evaluated five months after implementation.Review methods included satisfaction surveys and observations made by an external expert.Survey findings from 118 participants indicated positive perceptions of all aspects of the service provided by Triple I (Hub), with similar ratings provided by staff (n = 56) and clients (n = 62). The external expert reported that there was improved job satisfaction expressed by staff, and there was significant reduction in processing time of aged care referrals from 3 weeks to less than 24 hours.Evidence from mixed methods evaluation was used. Quantitative survey results only reported satisfaction by users, but observations provided supplementary indications for service development.