Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the UK almost 60% of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who use mental health services say they are not involved in decisions about their treatment. Guidelines and policy documents recommend that shared decision-making should be implemented, yet whether it leads to greater treatment-related empowerment for this group has not been systematically assessed. To examine the effects of shared decision-making on indices of treatment-related empowerment of people with psychosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of shared decision-making concerning current or future treatment for psychosis (PROSPERO registration CRD42013006161). Primary outcomes were indices of treatment-related empowerment and objective coercion (compulsory treatment). Secondary outcomes were treatment decision-making ability and the quality of the therapeutic relationship. We identified 11 RCTs. Small beneficial effects of increased shared decision-making were found on indices of treatment-related empowerment (6 RCTs; g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-0.51), although the effect was smaller if trials with >25% missing data were excluded. There was a trend towards shared decision-making for future care leading to reduced use of compulsory treatment over 15-18 months (3 RCTs; RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-1.02), with a number needed to treat of approximately 10 (95% CI 5-∞). No clear effect on treatment decision-making ability (3 RCTs) or the quality of the therapeutic relationship (8 RCTs) was found, but data were heterogeneous. For people with psychosis the implementation of shared treatment decision-making appears to have small beneficial effects on indices of treatment-related empowerment, but more direct evidence is required.

Antipsychotic drugs are usually the first line of treatment for schizophrenia; however, many patients refuse or discontinue their pharmacological treatment. We aimed to establish whether cognitive therapy was effective in reducing psychiatric symptoms in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who had chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs. We did a single-blind randomised controlled trial at two UK centres between Feb 15, 2010, and May 30, 2013. Participants aged 16–65 years with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, who had chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs for psychosis, were randomly assigned (1:1), by a computerised system with permuted block sizes of four or six, to receive cognitive therapy plus treatment as usual, or treatment as usual alone. Randomisation was stratified by study site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. Our primary outcome was total score on the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS), which we assessed at baseline, and at months 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18. Analysis was by intention to treat, with an ANCOVA model adjusted for site, age, sex, and baseline symptoms. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 29607432. 74 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either cognitive therapy plus treatment as usual (n=37), or treatment as usual alone (n=37). Mean PANSS total scores were consistently lower in the cognitive therapy group than in the treatment as usual group, with an estimated between-group effect size of −6·52 (95% CI −10·79 to −2·25; p=0·003). We recorded eight serious adverse events: two in patients in the cognitive therapy group (one attempted overdose and one patient presenting risk to others, both after therapy), and six in those in the treatment as usual group (two deaths, both of which were deemed unrelated to trial participation or mental health; three compulsory admissions to hospital for treatment under the mental health act; and one attempted overdose). Cognitive therapy significantly reduced psychiatric symptoms and seems to be a safe and acceptable alternative for people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders who have chosen not to take antipsychotic drugs. Evidence-based treatments should be available to these individuals. A larger, definitive trial is needed. National Institute for Health Research.

Subjective cognitive complaints are prevalent in those affected by functional psychoses and a variety of possible associated factors have been investigated. However, few studies have examined these potential factors within single studies or analyses. Patients with a history of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (n = 115) and a non-clinical comparison group (n = 45) completed the Subjective Scale to Investigate Cognition in Schizophrenia (SSTICS) and the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS). The patient group also completed the Positive and Negative Syndromes Scale (PANSS), the Birchwood Insight Scale (IS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The BACS and SSTICS scores were associated in the non-clinical comparison group, but not in the patient group. In the patient group worse subjective cognition was associated positively with good insight, greater dysphoria and greater positive symptoms. Linear regression revealed that, once other variables had been accounted for, dysphoria (HADS anxiety and depression factor) was the only significant predictor of SSTICS scores. Subjective cognitive impairment in patients with psychosis in the absence of formal testing should not be taken as evidence of impaired cognitive functioning. Mood should be investigated when patients present with subjective cognitive complaints.

Written with clinicians in mind, this book demonstrates the use of Cognitive Behavior Therapy with individuals who are at risk of developing psychosis.Divided into three parts, the book opens with the background to the clinical trial including the rationale for the early intervention strategy, assessment strategies to identify \"at risk\" groups.

A cognitive approach to the understanding of psychotic symptoms that focuses on the interpretation of intrusions into awareness is outlined. It is argued that many positive psychotic symptoms (such as hallucinations and delusions) can be conceptualized as intrusions into awareness or culturally unacceptable interpretations of such intrusions, and that it is the interpretation of these intrusions that causes the associated distress and disability. It is also argued that the nature of these interpretations is affected by faulty self and social knowledge and that both the intrusions and their interpretations are maintained by mood, physiology, and cognitive and behavioural responses (including selective attention, safety behaviours and counterproductive control strategies). The literature is reviewed and found to be compatible with such a model and the clinical implications are discussed.

Objectives: This paper examines the research and theoretical literature on potential links between trauma and psychosis. Methods: Three main alternatives are considered; can psychosis cause PTSD, can trauma cause psychosis and could psychosis and PTSD both be part of a spectrum of responses to a traumatic event? The more influential studies considered are critically evaluated and methodological considerations specific to research regarding trauma and psychosis are also examined. Results: Evidence is found in support of each of these relationships, and an integrative approach to conceptualizing the relationships is suggested. Conclusions: Recent conceptualizations of PTSD and psychosis are used to inform the consideration of these different pathways, and the implications for theories of psychosis and trauma and the clinical implications for services for psychotic patients are discussed.

Face-to-face hearing voices peer support groups (HVGs), a survivor-led initiative that enables individuals who hear voices to engage with the support of peers, have a long-standing history in community settings. HVGs are premised on the notion that forming authentic, mutual relationships enables the exploration of one's voice hearing experiences and, in turn, reduces subjective distress. As such, group cohesion is assumed to be a central mechanism of change in HVGs. The rise of digital mental health support, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, has resulted in many HVGs adapting to online delivery. However, to date no studies have examined the implementation of these online groups and the adaptations necessary to foster cohesion. This study aims to understand the experience of group cohesion among HVG facilitators in online groups compared with face-to-face groups. Specifically, we examined the ways in which the medium through which groups run (online or face-to-face) impacts group cohesion and how facilitators adapted HVGs to foster group cohesion online. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 facilitators with varied experience of facilitating online and face-to-face HVGs. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings are organized into 3 themes and associated subthemes: nonverbal challenges to cohesion (lack of differentiation, transitional space, inability to see the whole picture, and expressions of empathy); discursive challenges to cohesion (topic-based conversation and depth of disclosure); and necessary adaptations for online groups (fostering shared experience and using the unique context to demonstrate investment in others). Despite challenges in both the setting and content of online groups, facilitators felt that group cohesion was still possible to achieve online but that it had to be facilitated intentionally. This study is the first to specifically investigate group cohesion in online HVGs. Participants noted numerous challenges to group cohesion when adapting groups to run online, including the unnaturally linear narrative flow of dialogue in online settings; lack of transitional spaces, and associated small talk before and after the session; ease of disengagement online; inhibited sharing; and absence of shared physical presence online. Although these challenges were significant, facilitators nevertheless emphasized that the benefits provided by the accessibility of online groups outweighed these challenges. Necessary adaptations for cultivating group cohesion online are outlined and include capitalizing on moments of humor and spontaneity, using group activities, encouraging information sharing between participants using the chat and screen-sharing features, and using objects from participants' environments to gain deeper insight into their subjective worlds.

Background People with serious mental health problems (SMHP) are more likely to be admitted to psychiatric hospital following contact with crisis services. Admissions can have significant personal costs, be traumatic and are the most expensive form of mental health care. There is an urgent need for treatments to reduce suicidal thoughts and behaviours and reduce avoidable psychiatric admissions. Methods A multi-stage, multi-arm (MAMS) randomised controlled trial (RCT) with four arms conducted over two stages to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of three psychosocial treatments, compared to treatment as usual (TAU), for people with SMHP who have had recent suicidal crisis. Primary outcome is any psychiatric hospital admissions over a 6-month period. We will assess the impact on suicidal thoughts and behaviour, hope, recovery, anxiety and depression. The remote treatments delivered over 3 months are structured peer support (PREVAIL); a safety planning approach (SAFETEL) delivered by assistant psychologists; and a CBT-based suicide prevention app accessed via a smartphone (BrighterSide). Recruitment is at five UK sites. Stage 1 includes an internal pilot with a priori progression criteria. In stage 1, the randomisation ratio was 1:1:1:2 in favour of TAU. This has been amended to 2:2:3 in favour of TAU following an unplanned change to remove the BrighterSide arm following the release of efficacy data from an independent RCT. Randomisation is via an independent remote web-based randomisation system using randomly permuted blocks, stratified by site. An interim analysis will be performed using data from the first 385 participants from PREVAIL, SAFETEL and TAU with outcome data at 6 months. If one arm is dropped for lack of benefit in stage 2, the allocation ratio of future participants will be 1:1. The expected total sample size is 1064 participants (1118 inclusive of BrighterSide participants). Discussion There is a need for evidence-based interventions to reduce psychiatric admissions, via reduction of suicidality. Our focus on remote delivery of established brief psychosocial interventions, utilisation of different modalities of delivery that can provide sustainable and scalable solutions, which are also suitable for a pandemic or national crisis context, will significantly advance treatment options. Trial registration ISRCTN33079589. Registered on June 20, 2022.

Abstract Background There is little head-to-head data comparing cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp) and antipsychotic medication (APs). However, several recent trials have been conducted in first episode psychosis. We report a pre-specified individual participant data (IPD) pooled analysis utilizing data from two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with similar designs to examine relative effectiveness. Study Design The outcomes were psychiatric symptoms (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale: PANSS) and recovery (Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery: QPR) at 6 months. One-stage and two-stage IPD meta-analyses were performed based on the intention-to-treat principle. Serious adverse events are also summarized. Study Results Two RCTs were included in the pooled IPD analysis which provided 136 participants. For PANSS total at 6 months, the one-stage meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference between CBTp alone and APs alone (mean difference 2.58, 95% CI, -2.83 to 7.98; P-value 0.35) and CBTp alone compared with APs plus CBTp (MD -5.91; 95% CI, -12.14 to 0.31; P-value 0.063). For APs alone compared to CBTp plus APs there was evidence of a difference (MD -8.49; 95% CI, -14.65 to -2.33; P-value 0.007) favoring the combined treatment. For user-defined recovery (QPR), there was a difference favoring CBTp plus APs in comparison to both CBTp alone (P-value 0.029) and APs alone (P-value 0.026), but no difference between the monotherapies (P-value 0.91). The most common serious adverse events were psychiatric hospital admissions. Conclusions Cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis and APs did not differ in their effects on symptoms or recovery, but there were suggestions that the combined treatment may be superior. A definitive RCT is warranted.

Objective To determine whether any psychological, pharmacological, or nutritional interventions can prevent or delay transition to psychotic disorders for people at high risk.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Embase, Medline, PreMedline, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched to November 2011 without restriction to publication status. Review methods Randomised trials comparing any psychological, pharmacological, nutritional, or combined intervention with usual services or another treatment. Studies of participants with a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder were excluded. Studies were assessed for bias, and relevant limitations were considered in summarising the results.Results 11 trials including 1246 participants and eight comparisons were included. Median sample size of included trials was 81 (range 51-288). Meta-analyses were performed for transition to psychosis, symptoms of psychosis, depression, and mania; quality of life; weight; and discontinuation of treatment. Evidence of moderate quality showed an effect for cognitive behavioural therapy on reducing transition to psychosis at 12 months (risk ratio 0.54 (95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.86); risk difference −0.07 (−0.14 to −0.01). Very low quality evidence for omega-3 fatty acids and low to very low quality evidence for integrated psychotherapy also indicated that these interventions were associated with reductions in transition to psychosis at 12 months.Conclusions Although evidence of benefits for any specific intervention is not conclusive, these findings suggest that it might be possible to delay or prevent transition to psychosis. Further research should be undertaken to establish conclusively the potential for benefit of psychological interventions in the treatment of people at high risk of psychosis.