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.

Automated virtual reality therapies are being developed to increase access to psychological interventions. We assessed the experience with one such therapy of patients diagnosed with psychosis, including satisfaction, side effects, and positive experiences of access to the technology. We tested whether side effects affected therapy.

In a clinical trial 122 patients diagnosed with psychosis completed baseline measures of psychiatric symptoms, received gameChange VR therapy, and then completed a satisfaction questionnaire, the Oxford-VR Side Effects Checklist, and outcome measures.

79 (65.8%) patients were very satisfied with VR therapy, 37 (30.8%) were mostly satisfied, 3 (2.5%) were indifferent/mildly dissatisfied, and 1 (0.8%) person was quite dissatisfied. The most common side effects were: difficulties concentrating because of thinking about what might be happening in the room (n = 17, 14.2%); lasting headache (n = 10, 8.3%); and the headset causing feelings of panic (n = 9, 7.4%). Side effects formed three factors: difficulties concentrating when wearing a headset, feelings of panic using VR, and worries following VR. The occurrence of side effects was not associated with number of VR sessions, therapy outcomes, or psychiatric symptoms. Difficulties concentrating in VR were associated with slightly lower satisfaction. VR therapy provision and engagement made patients feel: proud (n = 99, 81.8%); valued (n = 97, 80.2%); and optimistic (n = 96, 79.3%).

Patients with psychosis were generally very positive towards the VR therapy, valued having the opportunity to try the technology, and experienced few adverse effects. Side effects did not significantly impact VR therapy. Patient experience of VR is likely to facilitate widespread adoption.

Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention.

We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone.

A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16–25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation.

We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was −4.44 (95% CI −10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm.

We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

The PRODIGY trial (Prevention of long term social disability amongst young people with emerging psychological difficulties, ISRCTN47998710) is a pilot trial of social recovery cognitive–behavioural therapy (SRCBT).

The PRODIGY qualitative substudy aimed to (a) explore individual experiences of participating in the pilot randomised, controlled trial (recruitment, randomisation, assessment) and initial views of therapy, and (b) to explore perceived benefits of taking part in research v. ethical concerns and potential risks.

Qualitative investigation using semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis.

Analysis revealed participant experiences around the key themes of acceptability, disclosure, practicalities, altruism and engagement.

Participants in both trial arms perceived themselves as gaining benefits from being involved in the study, above and beyond the intervention. This has implications for the design of future research and services for this client group, highlighting the importance of being flexible and an individualised approach as key engagement tools.

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.