Cargando…
Thinking Well: A randomised controlled feasibility study of a new CBT therapy targeting reasoning biases in people with distressing persecutory delusional beliefs
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Delusional beliefs with persecutory content are common in psychosis, but difficult to treat. Interventions targeting hypothesised causal and maintaining factors have been proposed as a way of improving therapy. The current study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4429971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25770671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.02.007 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Delusional beliefs with persecutory content are common in psychosis, but difficult to treat. Interventions targeting hypothesised causal and maintaining factors have been proposed as a way of improving therapy. The current study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of the ‘Thinking Well (TW)’ intervention: This novel approach combines the recently developed Maudsley Review Training Programme (MRTP), with additional, focussed cognitive-behavioural therapy sessions. METHODS: 31 participants with distressing persecutory delusions and schizophrenia spectrum disorders were randomised to TW or to treatment as usual in a 2:1 ratio. Participants completed outcome assessments at 0 (baseline), 1 (post-MRTP), 6 (post-TW) and 8 (follow-up) weeks. Key outcomes included belief flexibility, paranoia, and delusional conviction and distress. Participants allocated to TW completed the MRTP package and four CBT sessions with a clinical psychologist. RESULTS: Recruitment proved feasible. Participants reported the intervention was relevant and had resulted in positive changes in thinking and mood, which they could use in everyday life. Treatment effects were moderate-large for key outcomes including belief flexibility, paranoia conviction and distress. The additional TW sessions appeared to confer benefits over MRTP alone. LIMITATIONS: Assessments were not carried out blind to treatment condition. Recruitment was opportunistic, from an identified pool of research participants. Finally, a few participants had already completed the MRTP as part of a previous study. CONCLUSIONS: The TW intervention appears to be feasible and acceptable to participants, and the effects of treatment are promising. A fully powered randomised controlled trial of the intervention is warranted. |
---|