Ghazaleh Aali1, Timothy Kariotis2, Farhad Shokraneh3. 1. Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, Institute of Mental Health, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, Institute of Mental Health, Division of Psychiatry and Applied Psychology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve satisfactory improvements in their mental state, particularly the symptom of hearing voices (hallucinations), with medical treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2016, November 2018 and April 2019, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) was searched, review authors checked references of all identified relevant reports to identify more studies and contacted authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CIs. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in; mental state, insight, global state, quality of life and functioning as well as adverse effects and leaving the study early. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 potentially relevant references for three studies (participants = 195) comparing Avatar Therapy with two other interventions; treatment as usual or supportive counselling. Both Avatar Therapy and supportive counselling were given in addition (add-on) to the participants' normal care. All of the studies had high risk of bias across one or more domains for methodology and, for other risks of bias, authors from one of the studies were involved in the development of the avatar systems on trial and in another trial, authors had patents on the avatar system pending. 1. Avatar Therapy compared with treatment as usual When Avatar Therapy was compared with treatment as usual average endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Positive (PANSS-P) scores were not different between treatment groups (MD -1.93, 95% CI -5.10 to 1.24; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). A measure of insight (Revised Beliefs about Voices Questionnaire; BAVQ-R) showed an effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -5.97, 95% CI -10.98 to -0.96; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No one was rehospitalised in either group in the short term (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). Numbers leaving the study early from each group were not clearly different - although more did leave from the Avatar Therapy group (6/14 versus 0/12; RR 11.27, 95% CI 0.70 to 181.41; studies = 1, participants = 26; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in anxiety between treatment groups (RR 5.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 89.80; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, average Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (QLESQ-SF) scores favoured Avatar Therapy (MD 9.99, 95% CI 3.89 to 16.09; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for functioning. 2. Avatar Therapy compared with supportive counselling When Avatar Therapy was compared with supportive counselling (all short-term), general mental state (Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS)) scores favoured the Avatar Therapy group (MD -4.74, 95% CI -8.01 to -1.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). For insight (BAVQ-R), there was a small effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -8.39, 95% CI -14.31 to -2.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). Around 20% of each group left the study early (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89; studies = 1, participants = 150; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of quality of life scores (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)) showed no clear difference between groups (MD 2.69, 95% CI -1.48 to 6.86; studies = 1, participants = 120; low-certainty evidence). No data were available for rehospitalisation rates, adverse events or functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of available data shows few, if any, consistent effects of Avatar Therapy for people living with schizophrenia who experience auditory hallucinations. Where there are effects, or suggestions of effects, we are uncertain because of their risk of bias and their unclear clinical meaning. The theory behind Avatar Therapy is compelling but the practice needs testing in large, long, well-designed, well-reported randomised trials undertaken with help from - but not under the direction of - Avatar Therapy pioneers.
BACKGROUND: Many people with schizophrenia do not achieve satisfactory improvements in their mental state, particularly the symptom of hearing voices (hallucinations), with medical treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2016, November 2018 and April 2019, the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) was searched, review authors checked references of all identified relevant reports to identify more studies and contacted authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on Avatar Therapy for people with schizophrenia or related disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and 95% CIs. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in; mental state, insight, global state, quality of life and functioning as well as adverse effects and leaving the study early. MAIN RESULTS: We found 14 potentially relevant references for three studies (participants = 195) comparing Avatar Therapy with two other interventions; treatment as usual or supportive counselling. Both Avatar Therapy and supportive counselling were given in addition (add-on) to the participants' normal care. All of the studies had high risk of bias across one or more domains for methodology and, for other risks of bias, authors from one of the studies were involved in the development of the avatar systems on trial and in another trial, authors had patents on the avatar system pending. 1. Avatar Therapy compared with treatment as usual When Avatar Therapy was compared with treatment as usual average endpoint Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale - Positive (PANSS-P) scores were not different between treatment groups (MD -1.93, 95% CI -5.10 to 1.24; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). A measure of insight (Revised Beliefs about Voices Questionnaire; BAVQ-R) showed an effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -5.97, 95% CI -10.98 to -0.96; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No one was rehospitalised in either group in the short term (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.20; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). Numbers leaving the study early from each group were not clearly different - although more did leave from the Avatar Therapy group (6/14 versus 0/12; RR 11.27, 95% CI 0.70 to 181.41; studies = 1, participants = 26; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in anxiety between treatment groups (RR 5.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 89.80; studies = 1, participants = 19; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, average Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (QLESQ-SF) scores favoured Avatar Therapy (MD 9.99, 95% CI 3.89 to 16.09; studies = 1, participants = 19; very low-certainty evidence). No study reported data for functioning. 2. Avatar Therapy compared with supportive counselling When Avatar Therapy was compared with supportive counselling (all short-term), general mental state (Psychotic Symptom Rating Scale (PSYRATS)) scores favoured the Avatar Therapy group (MD -4.74, 95% CI -8.01 to -1.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). For insight (BAVQ-R), there was a small effect in favour of Avatar Therapy (MD -8.39, 95% CI -14.31 to -2.47; studies = 1, participants = 124; low-certainty evidence). Around 20% of each group left the study early (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.89; studies = 1, participants = 150; moderate-certainty evidence). Analysis of quality of life scores (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA)) showed no clear difference between groups (MD 2.69, 95% CI -1.48 to 6.86; studies = 1, participants = 120; low-certainty evidence). No data were available for rehospitalisation rates, adverse events or functioning. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses of available data shows few, if any, consistent effects of Avatar Therapy for people living with schizophrenia who experience auditory hallucinations. Where there are effects, or suggestions of effects, we are uncertain because of their risk of bias and their unclear clinical meaning. The theory behind Avatar Therapy is compelling but the practice needs testing in large, long, well-designed, well-reported randomised trials undertaken with help from - but not under the direction of - Avatar Therapy pioneers.
Authors: Stefan Leucht; John M Kane; Werner Kissling; Johannes Hamann; Eva Etschel; Rolf Engel Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Andrew C Leon; Craig H Mallinckrodt; Christy Chuang-Stein; Donald G Archibald; Graeme E Archer; Kevin Chartier Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Julian Leff; Geoffrey Williams; Mark A Huckvale; Maurice Arbuthnot; Alex P Leff Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Carl B Roth; Andreas Papassotiropoulos; Annette B Brühl; Undine E Lang; Christian G Huber Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-08-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: L C Smith; L Mariegaard; D L Vernal; A G Christensen; N Albert; N Thomas; C Hjorthøj; L B Glenthøj; M Nordentoft Journal: Trials Date: 2022-09-13 Impact factor: 2.728