4.6 Article

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Subjects at Ultrahigh Risk for Developing Psychosis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Journal

SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 1180-1188

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbs105

Keywords

cognitive behavioral therapy; ultrahigh risk; cognitive biases; prevention; psychosis; schizophrenia

Categories

Funding

  1. Netherlands Health Research Council, ZonMW [120510001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments for subjects at ultrahigh risk (UHR) for developing psychosis remains inconclusive. Objective: A new cognitive behavioral intervention specifically targeted at cognitive biases (ie, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy [CBT] for UHR patients plus treatment as usual [TAU] called CBTuhr) is compared with TAU in a group of young help-seeking UHR subjects. Methods: A total of 201 patients were recruited at 4 sites and randomized. In most cases, CBTuhr was an add-on therapy because most people were seeking help for a comorbid disorder. The CBT was provided for 6 months, and the follow-up period was 18 months. Results: In the CBTuhr condition, 10 patients transitioned to psychosis compared with 22 in the TAU condition (chi(2) (1) = 5.575, P = .03). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7-89.9). At 18-month follow-up the CBTuhr group was significantly more often remitted from an at-risk mental state, with a NNT of 7 (95% Cl: 3.7-71.2). Intention-to-treat analysis, including 5 violations against exclusion criteria, showed a statistical tendency (chi(2) (1) = 3.338, P = .06). Conclusions: Compared with TAU, this new CBT (focusing on normalization and awareness of cognitive biases) showed a favorable effect on the transition to psychosis and reduction of subclinical psychotic symptoms in subjects at UHR to develop psychosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available