Despite the small number and low quality of studies, some existential therapies appear beneficial for certain populations. We found particular support for structured interventions incorporating psychoeducation, exercises, and discussing meaning in life directly and positively with physically ill patients. It is important to study more precisely which existential intervention works the best for which individual client.

Objective: To explore the role of specialist outpatient eating disorders services and investigate how direct access to these affects rates of referral, admissions for inpatient treatment, and continuity of care.Method: Services beyond primary care in Greater London retrospectively identified adolescents who presented with an eating disorder over a 2-year period. Data concerning service use were collected from clinical casenotes. Results:In areas where specialist outpatient services were available, 2-3 times more cases were identified than in areas without such services. Where initial outpatient treatment was in specialist rather than nonspecialist services, there was a significantly lower rate of admission for inpatient treatment and considerably higher consistency of care.Discussion: Developing specialist outpatient services with direct access from primary care is likely to lead to improvements in treatment and reduce overall costs. V

Background Cannabis is the most prevalent illicit substance among people with psychosis, and its use is associated with poorer clinical and social outcomes. However, so far, there has been limited evidence that any treatment is effective for reducing use. Contingency management (CM) is an incentive-based intervention for substance misuse that has a substantial evidence base across a range of substances and cohorts. However, to date there have been no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CM as a treatment for cannabis use specifically in psychosis. Objective To conduct a RCT investigating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CM in reducing cannabis use among Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) service users. Design The CIRCLE (Contingency Intervention for Reduction of Cannabis in Early Psychosis) trial was a rater-blinded, multicentre RCT with two arms. Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either an CM arm, in which participants received CM for cannabis use alongside an optimised treatment-as-usual programme including structured psychoeducation, or a control arm in which participants received the treatment as usual only. Setting EIP services across the Midlands and the south-east of England. Participants The main eligibility criteria were EIP service users with a history of psychosis, aged 18–36 years, and having used cannabis at least once per week during 12 of the previous 24 weeks. Intervention The CM intervention offered financial incentives (i.e. shopping vouchers) for cannabis abstinence over 12 once-weekly sessions, confirmed using urinalysis. The maximum value in vouchers that participants could receive was £240. Main outcome measures The main outcome was time to relapse, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service or hospital. The primary outcome was assessed at 18 months post inclusion using electronic patient records. Secondary outcomes assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention, for which data were collected at 3 and 18 months. Results A total of 278 participants were randomised to the CM arm and 273 were randomised to the control arm. In total, 530 (96%) participants were followed up for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in time to admission between trial arms by 18 months following consent (hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.40). There were no statistically significant differences in most secondary outcomes, including cannabis use, at either follow-up assessment. There were 58 serious adverse events, comprising 52 inpatient episodes, five deaths and one arrest. Limitations Participant retention was low at 18 months, limiting the assessment of secondary outcomes. A different CM intervention design or reward level may have been effective. Conclusions The CM intervention did not appear to be effective in reducing cannabis use and acute relapse among people with early psychosis and problematic cannabis use. Future work Cannabis use is still a significant clinical concern in this population. A pressing need remains to identify suitable treatments. A wider perspective on the social circumstances of young people with psychosis may be needed for a successful intervention to be found. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33576045. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 45. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Cannabis is the most commonly used illicit substance amongst people with psychosis. Continued cannabis use following the onset of psychosis is associated with poorer functional and clinical outcomes. However, finding effective ways of intervening has been very challenging. We examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adjunctive contingency management (CM), which involves incentives for abstinence from cannabis use, in people with a recent diagnosis of psychosis. Methods CIRCLE was a pragmatic multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Participants were recruited via Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services across the Midlands and South East of England. They had had at least one episode of clinically diagnosed psychosis (affective or non-affective); were aged 18 to 36; reported cannabis use in at least 12 out of the previous 24 weeks; and were not currently receiving treatment for cannabis misuse, or subject to a legal requirement for cannabis testing. Participants were randomised via a secure web-based service 1:1 to either an experimental arm, involving 12 weeks of CM plus a six-session psychoeducation package, or a control arm receiving the psychoeducation package only. The total potential voucher reward in the CM intervention was £240. The primary outcome was time to acute psychiatric care, operationalised as admission to an acute mental health service (including community alternatives to admission). Primary outcome data were collected from patient records at 18 months post-consent by assessors masked to allocation. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33576045. Results Five hundred fifty-one participants were recruited between June 2012 and April 2016. Primary outcome data were obtained for 272 (98%) in the CM (experimental) group and 259 (95%) in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in time to acute psychiatric care (the primary outcome) (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.76, 1.40) between groups. By 18 months, 90 (33%) of participants in the CM group, and 85 (30%) of the control groups had been admitted at least once to an acute psychiatric service. Amongst those who had experienced an acute psychiatric admission, the median time to admission was 196 days (IQR 82, 364) in the CM group and 245 days (IQR 99, 382) in the control group. Cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that there is an 81% likelihood that the intervention was cost-effective, mainly resulting from higher mean inpatient costs for the control group compared with the CM group; however, the cost difference between groups was not statistically significant. There were 58 adverse events, 27 in the CM group and 31 in the control group. Conclusions Overall, these results suggest that CM is not an effective intervention for improving the time to acute psychiatric admission or reducing cannabis use in psychosis, at least at the level of voucher reward offered.

Questions about the nature of human existence have puzzled the human mind for millennia, for instance, "What is the meaning of my life?" "How do I cope with my mortality?" (e.g., Greenberg, Koole, & Pyszczynski, 2004;Tillich, 1952). For some people, these concerns may evoke such anxiety, uncertainty, and crisis that they may experience severe psychological distress (Yalom, 1980). People may be especially vulnerable to experiencing such distress when they are in boundary situations (Jaspers, 1925)-that is, when they are confronted with issues about their very existence, such as the diagnosis of terminal illness. Many forms of psychotherapy and counseling implicitly help clients to address such existential concerns. However, one group of therapies that explicitly claims to do this-and to help clients develop a deeper understanding of their lived existence within a close relational encounter-consists of the existential approaches to psychotherapy.