AVATAR therapy, a digitally supported intervention, utilises avatars to promote recovery in people who experience distressing auditory hallucinations. This approach was recently evaluated in a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing brief (AV-BRF) and extended (AV-EXT) forms of therapy with treatment as usual (TAU). There was evidence for the effectiveness of therapy, particularly for AV-EXT. However, value for money needs to be assessed.

To compare separately the cost utility of the brief and extended forms of AVATAR therapy with TAU.

In a three-arm randomised controlled trial the use of health services was measured, and costs (2021/2022; pounds sterling) calculated from a health and social care perspective over a 28-week follow-up period. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; derived from the 5-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire) were combined with costs.

AV-BRF resulted in extra costs of £319 (95% CI, −£1558 to £2496), and AV-EXT in lower costs of £1965 (95% CI, −£1912 to £1519), compared with TAU. Over the follow-up, AV-BRF resulted in 0.0159 (95% CI, −0.0103 to 0.0422) and AV-EXT in 0.0173 (95% CI, −0.0049 to 0.0395) more QALYs than TAU. The cost per QALY for AV-BRF compared with TAU was £20 016, while AV-EXT dominated TAU (lower costs and more QALYs).

Neither version of AVATAR had a substantial impact on QALYs. However, AV-EXT did result in reduced care costs − albeit not statistically significant − and was potentially cost-effective compared with TAU. AV-BRF had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that indicated lower potential cost-effectiveness. These findings are uncertain, but could still inform decision-making regarding interventions in this field.

There is evidence that attachment, trauma, and voice appraisals individually impact voice hearing in psychosis, but their intersectional relationship has not been examined. The aim of this study was to identify subgroups of individuals from the intersectional relationship between these factors and examine differences between subgroups on clinical outcomes.

A latent profile analysis was conducted on baseline data from the AVATAR2 trial (n = 345), to identify statistically distinct subgroups of individuals with psychosis who hear distressing voices based on co-occurring patterns of trauma, fearful attachment, and voice appraisals. The association between profile membership and demographic characteristics, voice severity, posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, emotional distress, and difficulties with motivation and pleasure was then examined. Experts by experience were consulted throughout the process.

Four profiles were identified: ‘adverse voices and relational trauma’, ‘low malevolent and omnipotent voices’, ‘adverse voices yet low relational trauma’, and ‘high benevolent voices’. Negative voice appraisals occurred in the presence of high and low trauma and attachment adversities. The first profile was associated with being female and/or other non-male genders and had worse voice severity and emotional distress. High adversities and worse emotional distress occurred in the presence of voice benevolence and engagement. Black and South Asian ethnicities were not associated with specific profiles.

The identified profiles had negative and positive voice appraisals associated with higher and lower occurrence of adversities, and different clinical outcomes. These profiles could inform detailed case formulations that could tailor interventions for voice hearers.