Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Despite previous investigations of service user preferences for the overall mental health service treatment of psychosis, there is uncertainty surrounding the specific psychological intervention preferences of service users with psychosis. We conducted a systematic review of 10 studies outlining the psychological intervention preferences of service users with psychosis, organising the findings into outcome priorities and delivery mode preferences. Service users generally prioritised various psychosocial outcomes—more specifically emotional, behavioural, self-reflective, and quality of life outcomes—with outcomes related to psychosis symptoms considered less important. Regarding delivery mode, there were indicated preferences for some level of individualised care over the sole provision of group interventions. There were also some indicated preferences for collaborative formulation within psychological interventions and remote delivery options. Notwithstanding various methodological limitations, the findings could be considered as a progressive preliminary step towards the increased accommodation of the psychological intervention preferences of service users with psychosis.
Despite previous investigations of service user preferences for the overall mental health service treatment of psychosis, there is uncertainty surrounding the specific psychological intervention preferences of service users with psychosis. We conducted a systematic review of 10 studies outlining the psychological intervention preferences of service users with psychosis, organising the findings into outcome priorities and delivery mode preferences. Service users generally prioritised various psychosocial outcomes—more specifically emotional, behavioural, self-reflective, and quality of life outcomes—with outcomes related to psychosis symptoms considered less important. Regarding delivery mode, there were indicated preferences for some level of individualised care over the sole provision of group interventions. There were also some indicated preferences for collaborative formulation within psychological interventions and remote delivery options. Notwithstanding various methodological limitations, the findings could be considered as a progressive preliminary step towards the increased accommodation of the psychological intervention preferences of service users with psychosis.
Distressing voices are a core symptom of psychosis, for which existing treatments are currently suboptimal; as such, new effective treatments for distressing voices are needed. AVATAR therapy involves voice-hearers engaging in a series of facilitated dialogues with a digital embodiment of the distressing voice. This randomized phase 2/3 trial assesses the efficacy of two forms of AVATAR therapy, AVATAR-Brief (AV-BRF) and AVATAR-Extended (AV-EXT), both combined with treatment as usual (TAU) compared to TAU alone, and conducted an intention-to-treat analysis. We recruited 345 participants with psychosis; data were available for 300 participants (86.9%) at 16 weeks and 298 (86.4%) at 28 weeks. The primary outcome was voice-related distress at both time points, while voice severity and voice frequency were key secondary outcomes. Voice-related distress improved, compared with TAU, in both forms at 16 weeks but not at 28 weeks. Distress at 16 weeks was as follows: AV-BRF, effect −1.05 points, 96.5% confidence interval (CI) = −2.110 to 0, P = 0.035, Cohen’s d = 0.38 (CI = 0 to 0.767); AV-EXT −1.60 points, 96.5% CI = −3.133 to −0.058, P = 0.029, Cohen’s d = 0.58 (CI = 0.021 to 1.139). Distress at 28 weeks was: AV-BRF, −0.62 points, 96.5% CI = −1.912 to 0.679, P = 0.316, Cohen’s d = 0.22 (CI = −0.247 to 0.695); AV-EXT −1.06 points, 96.5% CI = −2.700 to 0.586, P = 0.175, Cohen’s d = 0.38 (CI = −0.213 to 0.981). Voice severity improved in both forms, compared with TAU, at 16 weeks but not at 28 weeks whereas frequency was reduced in AV-EXT but not in AV-BRF at both time points. There were no related serious adverse events. These findings provide partial support for our primary hypotheses. AV-EXT met our threshold for a clinically significant change, suggesting that future work should be primarily guided by this protocol. ISRCTN registration: ISRCTN55682735.
Trauma and post‐traumatic stress are involved in the aetiology and maintenance of voice‐hearing. It has been proposed that trauma‐focused therapy (TFT) might affect voice‐hearing, but previous studies are limited and remain undecided.ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate the effect of TFT on voice‐hearing in people with PTSD and psychosis using experience sampling method (ESM). A secondary aim was to explore how changes in voice‐hearing are related to changes in PTSD.DesignThis is an adjunct longitudinal ESM study of a sub‐group of participants (N = 39) from a randomised controlled trial that compared TFT to a waiting‐list control group.MethodsVoice‐hearing participants filled in 10 daily voice‐hearing‐related questionnaires for six consecutive days at baseline and post‐treatment at pseudo‐random times during the day. PTSD symptom severity was assessed at baseline and post‐treatment. Multilevel linear regression was used to test the effect of TFT on voice‐hearing and to analyse the relationship between changes in voice‐hearing and changes in PTSD.ResultsThe intention‐to‐treat analysis showed a significant interaction effect between time and treatment condition (p < .00001) with a small effect size (dppc2 = −0.27), indicating a larger decrease in voice‐hearing in the TFT group than in the waiting‐list control group. Also, a significant association was observed between changes in PTSD symptoms and changes in voice‐hearing (p < .00001).ConclusionsOur findings tentatively suggest that, even when voices are not targeted directly, TFT for PTSD can alleviate distressing voices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.