23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cognitive Analytic Therapy for psychosis: A case series

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives Cognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) is an effective psychological intervention for several different mental health conditions. However, whether it is acceptable, safe, and beneficial for people with psychosis remains unclear, as is the feasibility of providing and evaluating it within a research context. The aim of this study was to begin to address these questions and to obtain for the first time a rich and detailed understanding of the experience of receiving CAT for psychosis. Design A mixed‐methods case series design. Method Seven individuals who experienced non‐affective psychosis received CAT. They completed assessments at the start of CAT, 16 weeks, and 28 weeks post‐baseline. Qualitative interviews were completed with four individuals following completion of or withdrawal from therapy. Results Six participants attended at least four sessions of therapy and four went on to complete therapy. There were no serious adverse events, and self‐reported adverse experiences were minimal. Qualitative interviews suggested CAT is acceptable and provided a way to understand and work therapeutically with psychosis. There was limited evidence of change in psychotic symptoms, but improvement in perceived recovery and personality integration was observed. Conclusions The results suggest that CAT is a safe and acceptable intervention for psychosis. Personality integration, perceived recovery, and functioning are relevant outcomes for future evaluations of CAT for psychosis. Practitioner points It is feasible to conduct research evaluating CAT for people with psychosis. Within this case series, CAT appears acceptable and safe to individuals with psychosis. Within this case series, clients reported that CAT was a positive and helpful experience. There is a mixed picture with regard to secondary outcomes, but the design and aims of this case series limit conclusion that can be drawn from this data.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          What does the PANSS mean?

          Despite the frequent use of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for rating the symptoms of schizophrenia, the clinical meaning of its total score and of the cut-offs that are used to define treatment response (e.g. at least 20% or 50% reduction of the baseline score) are as yet unclear. We therefore compared the PANSS with simultaneous ratings of Clinical Global Impressions (CGI). PANSS and CGI ratings at baseline (n = 4091), and after one, two, four and six weeks of treatment taken from a pooled database of seven pivotal, multi-center antipsychotic drug trials on olanzapine or amisulpride in patients with exacerbations of schizophrenia were compared using equipercentile linking. Being considered "mildly ill" according to the CGI approximately corresponded to a PANSS total score of 58, "moderately ill" to a PANSS of 75, "markedly ill" to a PANSS of 95 and severely ill to a PANSS of 116. To be "minimally improved" according to the CGI score was associated with a mean percentage PANSS reduction of 19%, 23%, 26% and 28% at weeks 1, 2, 4 and 6, respectively. The corresponding figures for a CGI rating "much improved" were 40%, 45%, 51% and 53%. The results provide a better framework for understanding the clinical meaning of the PANSS total score in drug trials of schizophrenia patients with acute exacerbations. Such studies may ideally use at least a 50% reduction from baseline cut-off to define response rather than lower thresholds. In treatment resistant populations, however, even a small improvement can be important, so that a 25% cut-off might be appropriate.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Schizophrenia: Effect Sizes, Clinical Models, and Methodological Rigor

            Background: Guidance in the United States and United Kingdom has included cognitive behavior therapy for psychosis (CBTp) as a preferred therapy. But recent advances have widened the CBTp targets to other symptoms and have different methods of provision, eg, in groups. Aim: To explore the effect sizes of current CBTp trials including targeted and nontargeted symptoms, modes of action, and effect of methodological rigor. Method: Thirty-four CBTp trials with data in the public domain were used as source data for a meta-analysis and investigation of the effects of trial methodology using the Clinical Trial Assessment Measure (CTAM). Results: There were overall beneficial effects for the target symptom (33 studies; effect size = 0.400 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.252, 0.548]) as well as significant effects for positive symptoms (32 studies), negative symptoms (23 studies), functioning (15 studies), mood (13 studies), and social anxiety (2 studies) with effects ranging from 0.35 to 0.44. However, there was no effect on hopelessness. Improvements in one domain were correlated with improvements in others. Trials in which raters were aware of group allocation had an inflated effect size of approximately 50%–100%. But rigorous CBTp studies showed benefit (estimated effect size = 0.223; 95% CI = 0.017, 0.428) although the lower end of the CI should be noted. Secondary outcomes (eg, negative symptoms) were also affected such that in the group of methodologically adequate studies the effect sizes were not significant. Conclusions: As in other meta-analyses, CBTp had beneficial effect on positive symptoms. However, psychological treatment trials that make no attempt to mask the group allocation are likely to have inflated effect sizes. Evidence considered for psychological treatment guidance should take into account specific methodological detail.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychometric comparison of PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care.

              The 2004 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines highlight the importance of assessing severity of depression in primary care. To assess the psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D) for measuring depression severity in primary care. Psychometric assessment. Thirty-two general practices in Grampian, Scotland. Consecutive patients referred to a primary care mental health worker completed the PHQ-9 and HADS at baseline (n = 1063) and at the end of treatment (n = 544). Data were analysed to assess reliability, robustness of factor structure, convergent/discriminant validity, convergence of severity banding, and responsiveness to change. Both scales demonstrated high internal consistency at baseline and end of treatment (PHQ-9 alpha = 0.83 and 0.92; HADS-D alpha = 0.84 and 0.89). One factor emerged each for the PHQ-9 (explaining 42% of variance) and HADS-D (explaining 52% of variance). Both scales converged more with each other than with the HADS anxiety (HADS-A) subscale at baseline (P<0.001) and at end of treatment (P = 0.01). Responsiveness to change was similar: effect size for PHQ-9 = 0.99 and for the HADS-D = 1. The HADS-D and PHQ-9 differed significantly in categorising severity of depression, with the PHQ-9 categorising a greater proportion of patients with moderate/severe depression (P<0.001). The HADS-D and PHQ-9 demonstrated reliability, convergent/discriminant validity, and responsiveness to change. However, they differed considerably in how they catergorised severity. Given that treatment decisions are made on the basis of severity, further work is needed to assess the validity of the scales' severity cut-off bands.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice
                Psychol Psychother Theory Res Pract
                Wiley
                14760835
                May 02 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Psychology and Mental Health; University of Manchester; UK
                [2 ]Community Links; Leeds UK
                [3 ]School of Health and Social Care; Edinburgh Napier University; UK
                [4 ]Leeds and York Partnerships NHS Foundation Trust; West Yorkshire UK
                [5 ]Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research; University of Lancaster; UK
                [6 ]NHS Lothian; Edinburgh UK
                [7 ]Liverpool Early Intervention Service; Mersey Care NHS Trust; Liverpool UK
                Article
                10.1111/papt.12183
                f2415355-f2f3-4513-a991-065990788ec1
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article