Pamela Jacobsen1, Kathleen Hodkinson2, Emmanuelle Peters3, Paul Chadwick4. 1. Clinical Psychologist and NIHR Research Fellow,Department of Psychology,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,UK. 2. Assistant Professor,Department of Psychology,Webster Vienna Private University,Austria. 3. Reader of Clinical Psychology,Department of Psychology,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust,UK. 4. Professor of Clinical Psychology and DClinPsy Programme Director,Department of Psychology,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with psychotic disorders account for most acute admissions to psychiatric wards. Psychological therapies are a treatment adjunct to standard medication and nursing care, but the evidence base for such therapies within in-patient settings is unclear.AimsTo conduct a systematic scoping review of the current evidence base for psychological therapies for psychosis delivered within acute in-patient settings (PROSPERO: CRD42015025623). METHOD: All study designs, and therapy models, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, ProQuest, conference abstracts and trial registries. RESULTS: We found 65 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the review, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The majority of studies evaluated cognitive-behavioural interventions. Quality was variable across all study types. The RCTs were mostly small (n<25 in the treatment arm), and many had methodological limitations including poorly described randomisation methods, inadequate allocation concealment and non-masked outcome assessments. We found studies used a wide range of different outcome measures, and relatively few studies reported affective symptoms or recovery-based outcomes. Many studies described adaptations to treatment delivery within in-patient settings, including increased frequency of sessions, briefer interventions and use of single-session formats. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, there is a clear need to improve methodological rigour within in-patient research. Interpretation of the current evidence base is challenging given the wide range of different therapies, outcome measures and models of delivery described in the literature.Declaration of interestNone.
BACKGROUND: People with psychotic disorders account for most acute admissions to psychiatric wards. Psychological therapies are a treatment adjunct to standard medication and nursing care, but the evidence base for such therapies within in-patient settings is unclear.AimsTo conduct a systematic scoping review of the current evidence base for psychological therapies for psychosis delivered within acute in-patient settings (PROSPERO: CRD42015025623). METHOD: All study designs, and therapy models, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, ProQuest, conference abstracts and trial registries. RESULTS: We found 65 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the review, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The majority of studies evaluated cognitive-behavioural interventions. Quality was variable across all study types. The RCTs were mostly small (n<25 in the treatment arm), and many had methodological limitations including poorly described randomisation methods, inadequate allocation concealment and non-masked outcome assessments. We found studies used a wide range of different outcome measures, and relatively few studies reported affective symptoms or recovery-based outcomes. Many studies described adaptations to treatment delivery within in-patient settings, including increased frequency of sessions, briefer interventions and use of single-session formats. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, there is a clear need to improve methodological rigour within in-patient research. Interpretation of the current evidence base is challenging given the wide range of different therapies, outcome measures and models of delivery described in the literature.Declaration of interestNone.
Authors: Cherrie Galletly; David Castle; Frances Dark; Verity Humberstone; Assen Jablensky; Eóin Killackey; Jayashri Kulkarni; Patrick McGorry; Olav Nielssen; Nga Tran Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Lisa B Dixon; Faith Dickerson; Alan S Bellack; Melanie Bennett; Dwight Dickinson; Richard W Goldberg; Anthony Lehman; Wendy N Tenhula; Christine Calmes; Rebecca M Pasillas; Jason Peer; Julie Kreyenbuhl Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Brandon A Gaudiano; Stacy Ellenberg; Barbara Ostrove; Jennifer Johnson; Kim T Mueser; Martin Furman; Ivan W Miller Journal: J Cogn Psychother Date: 2020-01-01