Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-prt4h Total loading time: 0.216 Render date: 2021-10-16T06:37:59.352Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Risk of harm after psychological intervention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

P. J. McKenna
Affiliation:
Benito Menni Complex Assistencial en Salut Mental, Barcelona, and Cibersam, Spain. Email: mckennapeter1@gmail.com
R. Salvador
Affiliation:
Benito Menni Complex Assistencial en Salut Mental, Barcelona, and Cibersam, Spain
D. Lynch
Affiliation:
Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow, UK
K. R. Laws
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, UK
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008 

In their trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention for relapse prevention in psychosis, Reference Garety, Fowler, Freeman, Bebbington, Dunn and Kuipers1 Garety et al state: ‘There were no differences between the groups, in either [the no-carer or carer] pathway, in the primary outcomes of patterns of remission and relapse’. However, data in their Table 1 indicates that more patients who received CBT relapsed than those who received treatment as usual (TAU) (CBT 60/122, TAU 41/119 for all the patients randomised to CBT or TAU). A statistical analysis (logistic model) for the proportion of relapses reveals a significant reduced relapse frequency for TAU.

The differences remain significant (P=0.0153) when only patients in the no-carer pathway are considered (CBT 53/97, TAU 34/92), but there are no differences for those in the carer pathway (CBT 7/25, TAU 7/27), although here the numbers are small.

It is possible that differences in gender and age distribution between the CBT and TAU arms of the trial, or even differences between centres, could have led to different results in the statistical analyses performed by the authors. However, randomisation should have minimised such differences and the authors make no mention of them in the paper.

Hence, on the basis of the results reported, CBT appears to have a detrimental effect on relapse in non-affective psychosis.

References

1 Garety, PA, Fowler, DG, Freeman, D, Bebbington, P, Dunn, G, Kuipers, E. Cognitive–behavioural therapy and family intervention for relapse prevention and symptom reduction in psychosis: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 192: 412–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Risk of harm after psychological intervention
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Risk of harm after psychological intervention
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Risk of harm after psychological intervention
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *