Dataset Information

Cognitive behaviour therapy versus other psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is now a recommended treatment for people with schizophrenia. This approach helps to link the person's distress and problem behaviours to underlying patterns of thinking.

Objectives

To review the effects of CBT for people with schizophrenia when compared with other psychological therapies.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. We inspected all references of the selected articles for further relevant trials, and, where appropriate, contacted authors.

Selection criteria

All relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBT for people with schizophrenia-like illnesses.

Data collection and analysis

Studies were reliably selected and assessed for methodological quality. Two review authors, working independently, extracted data. We analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and continuous data with 65% completion rate are presented. Where possible, for dichotomous outcomes, we estimated a risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) along with the number needed to treat/harm.

Main results

Thirty papers described 20 trials. Trials were often small and of limited quality. When CBT was compared with other psychosocial therapies, no difference was found for outcomes relevant to adverse effect/events (2 RCTs, n = 202, RR death 0.57 CI 0.12 to 2.60). Relapse was not reduced over any time period (5 RCTs, n = 183, RR long-term 0.91 CI 0.63 to 1.32) nor was rehospitalisation (5 RCTs, n = 294, RR in longer term 0.86 CI 0.62 to 1.21). Various global mental state measures failed to show difference (4 RCTs, n = 244, RR no important change in mental state 0.84 CI 0.64 to 1.09). More specific measures of mental state failed to show differential effects on positive or negative symptoms of schizophrenia but there may be some longer term effect for affective symptoms (2 RCTs, n = 105, mean difference (MD) Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) -6.21 CI -10.81 to -1.61). Few trials report on social functioning or quality of life. Findings do not convincingly favour either of the interventions (2 RCTs, n = 103, MD Social Functioning Scale (SFS) 1.32 CI -4.90 to 7.54; n = 37, MD EuroQOL -1.86 CI -19.20 to 15.48). For the outcome of leaving the study early, we found no significant advantage when CBT was compared with either non-active control therapies (4 RCTs, n = 433, RR 0.88 CI 0.63 to 1.23) or active therapies (6 RCTs, n = 339, RR 0.75 CI 0.40 to 1.43)

Authors' conclusions

Trial-based evidence suggests no clear and convincing advantage for cognitive behavioural therapy over other - and sometime much less sophisticated - therapies for people with schizophrenia.

SUBMITTER: Jones C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4163968 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the last forty years therapy outcomes for depression have remained the same with approximately 50% of patients responding to treatments. Advances are urgently required. We hypothesised that a recent treatment, metacognitive therapy (MCT), might be more effective, by targeting mental control processes that directly contribute to depression. We assessed the clinical efficacy of MCT compared to current best psychotherapy practice, CBT, in adults with major depressive disorder. A parallel randomized single-blind trial was conducted in a primary care outpatient setting. This trial is registered with the ISCRTN registry, number ISRCTN82799488. In total 174 adults aged 18 years or older meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV criteria for major depressive disorder were eligible and consented to take part. 85 were randomly allocated to MCT and 89 to CBT. Randomisation was performed independently following pre-treatment assessment and was stratified for severity of depression (low?<?20 vs high?>?=20) on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and on sex (male/female). Assessors and trial statisticians were blind to treatment allocation. Each treatment arm consisted of up to 24 sessions of up to 60?minutes each, delivered by trained clinical psychologists. The co-primary outcome measures were assessor rated symptom severity on the HDRS and self-reported symptom severity on the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) at post treatment. Secondary outcomes were scores six months post treatment on these measures and a range of symptom and mechanism variables. A key trial design feature was that each treatment was implemented to maximize individual patient benefit; hence time under therapy and number of sessions delivered could vary. Treated groups in the trial were very similar on most baseline characteristics. Data were analyzed on the basis of intention to treat (ITT). No differences were found on the HDRS at post treatment or follow-up (-0.95 [-2.88 to 0.98], p?=?0.336; and -1.61 [-3.65 to 0.43], p?=?0.122), but floor effects on this outcome were high. However, a significant difference favouring MCT was found on the BDI-II at post treatment (-5.49 [95% CI -8.90 to -2.08], p?=?0.002), which was maintained at six-month follow-up (-4.64 [-8.21 to -1.06], p?=?0.011). Following MCT 74% of patients compared with 52% in CBT met formal criteria for recovery on the BDI-II at post treatment (odds-ratio=2.42 [1.20 to 4.92], p?=?0.014). At follow-up the proportions were 74% compared to 56% recovery (odds-ratio=2.19 [1.05 to 4.54], p?=?0.036). Significant differences favouring MCT, also maintained over time, were observed for most secondary outcomes. The results were robust against controlling for time under therapy and when outcomes were assessed at a common 90 day mid-term time-point. Limitations of the study include the use of only two therapists where one treated 69% of patients, possible allegiance effects as the study was conducted in an established CBT clinic and the chief investigator is the originator of MCT and group differences in time under therapy. Never the less evidence from this study suggests that MCT had considerable beneficial effects in treating depression that may exceed CBT.

Project description:BackgroundCognitive behavioural therapy is an effective treatment for depression. However, one third of the patients do not respond satisfactorily, and relapse rates of around 30 % within the first post-treatment year were reported in a recent meta-analysis. In total, 30-50 % of remitted patients present with residual symptoms by the end of treatment. A common residual symptom is rumination, a process of recurrent negative thinking and dwelling on negative affect. Rumination has been demonstrated as a major factor in vulnerability to depression, predicting the onset, severity, and duration of future depression. Rumination-focused cognitive behavioural therapy is a psychotherapeutic treatment targeting rumination. Because rumination plays a major role in the initiation and maintenance of depression, targeting rumination with rumination-focused cognitive behavioural therapy may be more effective in treating depression and reducing relapse than standard cognitive behavioural therapy.Method/designThis study is a two-arm pragmatic randomised controlled superiority trial comparing the effectiveness of group-based rumination-focused cognitive behaviour therapy with the effectiveness of group-based cognitive behavioural therapy for treatment of depression. One hundred twenty-eight patients with depression will be recruited from and given treatment in an outpatient service at a psychiatric hospital in Denmark. Our primary outcome will be severity of depressive symptoms (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) at completion of treatment. Secondary outcomes will be level of rumination, worry, anxiety, quality of life, behavioural activation, experimental measures of cognitive flexibility, and emotional attentional bias. A 6-month follow-up is planned and will include the primary outcome measure and assessment of relapse.DiscussionThe clinical outcome of this trial may guide clinicians to decide on the merits of including rumination-focused cognitive behavioural therapy in the treatment of depression in outpatient services.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02278224 , registered 28 Oct. 2014.

Project description:Internet administered cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is a promising new way to deliver psychological treatment, but its effectiveness in regular care settings and in relation to more traditional CBT group treatment has not yet been determined. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Internet-and group administered CBT for panic disorder (with or without agoraphobia) in a randomised trial within a regular psychiatric care setting. The second aim of the study was to establish the cost-effectiveness of these interventions.Patients referred for treatment by their physician, or self-referred, were telephone-screened by a psychiatric nurse. Patients fulfilling screening criteria underwent an in-person structured clinical interview carried out by a psychiatrist. A total of 113 consecutive patients were then randomly assigned to 10 weeks of either guided Internet delivered CBT (n = 53) or group CBT (n = 60). After treatment, and at a 6-month follow-up, patients were again assessed by the psychiatrist, blind to treatment condition.Immediately after randomization 9 patients dropped out, leaving 104 patients who started treatment. Patients in both treatment conditions showed significant improvement on the main outcome measure, the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) after treatment. For the Internet treatment the within-group effect size (pre-post) on the PDSS was Cohen's d = 1.73, and for the group treatment it was d = 1.63. Between group effect sizes were low and treatment effects were maintained at 6-months follow-up. We found no statistically significant differences between the two treatment conditions using a mixed models approach to account for missing data. Group CBT utilised considerably more therapist time than did Internet CBT. Defining effect as proportion of PDSS responders, the cost-effectiveness analysis concerning therapist time showed that Internet treatment had superior cost-effectiveness ratios in relation to group treatment both at post-treatment and follow-up.This study provides support for the effectiveness of Internet CBT in a psychiatric setting for patients with panic disorder, and suggests that it is equally effective as the more widely used group administered CBT in reducing panic-and agoraphobic symptoms, as well as being more cost effective with respect to therapist time.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00845260.