Stigma of mental health conditions hinders recovery and well-being. The Honest, Open, Proud (HOP) program shows promise in reducing stigma but there is uncertainty about the feasibility of a randomized trial to evaluate a peer-delivered, individual adaptation of HOP for psychosis (Let's Talk).

A multi-site, Prospective Randomized Open Blinded Evaluation (PROBE) design, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the peer-delivered intervention (Let's Talk) to treatment as usual (TAU). Follow-up was 2.5 and 6 months. Randomization was via a web-based system, with permuted blocks of random size. Up to 10 sessions of the intervention over 10 weeks were offered. The primary outcome was feasibility data (recruitment, retention, intervention attendance). Primary outcomes were analyzed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported by as treated status. The study was prospectively registered: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17197043.

149 patients were referred to the study and 70 were recruited. 35 were randomly assigned to intervention + TAU and 35 to TAU. Recruitment was 93% of the target sample size. Retention rate was high (81% at 2.5 months primary endpoint), and intervention attendance rate was high (83%). 21% of 33 patients in Let's talk + TAU had an adverse event and 16% of 37 patients in TAU. One serious adverse event (pre-randomization) was partially related and expected.

This is the first trial to show that it is feasible and safe to conduct a RCT of HOP adapted for people with psychosis and individual delivery. An adequately powered trial is required to provide robust evidence.

There is wide variation in the problems prioritised by people with psychosis in cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp). While research trials and mental health services have often prioritised reduction in psychiatric symptoms, service users may prioritise issues not directly related to psychosis. This discrepancy suggests potential challenges in treatment outcome research.

The present study aimed to examine the types of problems that were recorded on problem lists generated in CBTp trials.

Problem and goals lists for 110 participants were extracted from CBTp therapy notes. Subsequently, problems were coded into 23 distinct categories by pooling together items that appeared thematically related.

More than half of participants (59.62%) listed a non-psychosis-related priority problem, and 22.12% did not list any psychosis related problems. Chi-square tests indicated there was no difference between participants from early intervention (EI) and other services in terms of priority problem (χ2 = 0.06, p = .804), but that those from EI were more likely to include any psychosis-related problems in their lists (χ2 = 6.66, p = .010).

The findings of this study suggest that psychiatric symptom reduction is not the primary goal of CBTp for most service users, particularly those who are not under the care of EI services. The implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.

Research has highlighted the importance of recovery as defined by the service user, and suggests a link to negative emotion, although little is known about the role of negative emotion in predicting subjective recovery.

To investigate longitudinal predictors of variability in recovery scores with a focus on the role of negative emotion.

Participants (n=110) with experience of psychosis completed measures of psychiatric symptoms, social functioning, subjective recovery, depression, hopelessness and self-esteem at baseline and 6 months later. Path analysis was used to examine predictive factors for recovery and negative emotion.

Subjective recovery scores were predicted by negative emotion, positive self-esteem and hopelessness, and to a lesser extent by symptoms and functioning. Current recovery score was not predicted by past recovery score after accounting for past symptoms, current hopelessness and current positive self-esteem.

Psychosocial factors and negative emotion appear to be the strongest longitudinal predictors of variation in subjective recovery, rather than psychiatric symptoms.

In the UK almost 60% of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who use mental health services say they are not involved in decisions about their treatment. Guidelines and policy documents recommend that shared decision-making should be implemented, yet whether it leads to greater treatment-related empowerment for this group has not been systematically assessed.

To examine the effects of shared decision-making on indices of treatment-related empowerment of people with psychosis.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of shared decision-making concerning current or future treatment for psychosis (PROSPERO registration CRD42013006161). Primary outcomes were indices of treatment-related empowerment and objective coercion (compulsory treatment). Secondary outcomes were treatment decision-making ability and the quality of the therapeutic relationship.

We identified 11 RCTs. Small beneficial effects of increased shared decision-making were found on indices of treatment-related empowerment (6 RCTs; g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.51), although the effect was smaller if trials with >25% missing data were excluded. There was a trend towards shared decision-making for future care leading to reduced use of compulsory treatment over 15–18 months (3 RCTs; RR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.35–1.02), with a number needed to treat of approximately 10 (95% CI 5–∞). No clear effect on treatment decision-making ability (3 RCTs) or the quality of the therapeutic relationship (8 RCTs) was found, but data were heterogeneous.

For people with psychosis the implementation of shared treatment decision-making appears to have small beneficial effects on indices of treatment-related empowerment, but more direct evidence is required.

Research suggests that the way in which cognitive therapy is delivered is an important factor in determining outcomes. We test the hypotheses in which the development of a shared problem list, use of case formulation, homework tasks and active intervention strategies will act as process variables.

Presence of these components during therapy is taken from therapist notes. The direct and indirect effect of the intervention is estimated by an instrumental variable analysis.

A significant decrease in the symptom score for case formulation (coefficient =–23, 95% CI –44 to –1.7, P = 0.036) and homework (coefficient =–0.26, 95% CI –0.51 to –0.001, P = 0.049) is found. Improvement with the inclusion of active change strategies is of borderline significance (coefficient =–0.23, 95% CI –0.47 to 0.005, P = 0.056).

There is a greater treatment effect if formulation and homework are involved in therapy. However, high correlation between components means that these may be indicators of overall treatment fidelity.

Despite evidence for the effectiveness of structured psychological therapies for bipolar disorder no psychological interventions have been specifically designed to enhance personal recovery for individuals with recent-onset bipolar disorder.

A pilot study to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a new intervention, recovery-focused cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT), designed in collaboration with individuals with recent-onset bipolar disorder intended to improve clinical and personal recovery outcomes.

A single, blind randomised controlled trial compared treatment as usual (TAU) with recovery-focused CBT plus TAU (n = 67).

Recruitment and follow-up rates within 10% of pre-planned targets to 12-month follow-up were achieved. An average of 14.15 h (s.d. = 4.21) of recovery-focused CBT were attended out of a potential maximum of 18 h. Compared with TAU, recovery-focused CBT significantly improved personal recovery up to 12-month follow-up (Bipolar Recovery Questionnaire mean score 310.87, 95% CI 75.00–546.74 (s.e. = 120.34), P = 0.010, d=0.62) and increased time to any mood relapse during up to 15 months follow-up (χ2 = 7.64, P<0.006, estimated hazard ratio (HR) = 0.38, 95% CI 0.18–0.78). Groups did not differ with respect to medication adherence.

Recovery-focused CBT seems promising with respect to feasibility and potential clinical effectiveness. Clinical- and cost-effectiveness now need to be reliably estimated in a definitive trial.

Internalised stigma in young people meeting criteria for at-risk mental states (ARMS) has been highlighted as an important issue, and it has been suggested that provision of cognitive therapy may increase such stigma.

To investigate the effects of cognitive therapy on internalised stigma using a secondary analysis of data from the EDIE-2 trial.

Participants meeting criteria for ARMS were recruited as part of a multisite randomised controlled trial of cognitive therapy for prevention and amelioration of psychosis. Participants were assessed at baseline and at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months using measures of psychotic experiences, symptoms and internalised stigma.

Negative appraisals of experiences were significantly reduced in the group assigned to cognitive therapy (estimated difference at 12 months was −1.36 (95% Cl −2.69 to −0.02), P = 0.047). There was no difference in social acceptability of experiences (estimated difference at 12 months was 0.46, 95% Cl −0.05 to 0.98, P = 0.079).

These findings suggest that, rather than increasing internalised stigma, cognitive therapy decreases negative appraisals of unusual experiences in young people at risk of psychosis; as such, it is a non-stigmatising intervention for this population.