Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25770671›Full record

Trial reportJournal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry2015

Thinking Well: A randomised controlled feasibility study of a new CBT therapy targeting reasoning biases in people with distressing persecutory delusional beliefs.

Helen Waller, Richard Emsley, Daniel Freeman, Paul Bebbington, Graham Dunn, David Fowler, Amy Hardy, Elizabeth Kuipers, Philippa Garety

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01920685 (Computerised Interventions for Thinking and Anxiety in Delusions), which is not on this map. Cited by 33 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT01920685 nacompletednot on this map

Computerised Interventions for Thinking and Anxiety in Delusions (CITADEL) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKing's College LondonRan2014 to 2016Enrolled25ConditionsParanoia in People With Schizophrenia-spectrum DiagnosisArmsAnxiety intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Cognitive behavioural therapy (group) for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Helen WallerKing's College London, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, UK. Electronic address: helen.waller@kcl.ac.uk.
Richard EmsleyCentre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, UK.
Daniel FreemanDepartment of Psychiatry, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Paul BebbingtonMental Health Sciences Unit, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, UK.
Graham DunnCentre for Biostatistics, Institute of Population Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, UK.
David FowlerDepartment of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Amy HardyKing's College London, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, UK.
Elizabeth KuipersKing's College London, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, UK.
Philippa GaretyKing's College London, The Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802418Medical Research Council G0900678Medical Research Council G0902308Wellcome Trust 085396
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesDelusional beliefs with persecutory content are common in psychosis, but difficult to treat. Interventions targeting hypothesised causal and maintaining factors have been proposed as a way of improving therapy. The current study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of the 'Thinking Well (TW)' intervention: This novel approach combines the recently developed Maudsley Review Training Programme (MRTP), with additional, focussed cognitive-behavioural therapy sessions.

methods31 participants with distressing persecutory delusions and schizophrenia spectrum disorders were randomised to TW or to treatment as usual in a 2:1 ratio. Participants completed outcome assessments at 0 (baseline), 1 (post-MRTP), 6 (post-TW) and 8 (follow-up) weeks. Key outcomes included belief flexibility, paranoia, and delusional conviction and distress. Participants allocated to TW completed the MRTP package and four CBT sessions with a clinical psychologist.

resultsRecruitment proved feasible. Participants reported the intervention was relevant and had resulted in positive changes in thinking and mood, which they could use in everyday life. Treatment effects were moderate-large for key outcomes including belief flexibility, paranoia conviction and distress. The additional TW sessions appeared to confer benefits over MRTP alone. LIMITATIONS: Assessments were not carried out blind to treatment condition. Recruitment was opportunistic, from an identified pool of research participants. Finally, a few participants had already completed the MRTP as part of a previous study.

conclusionsThe TW intervention appears to be feasible and acceptable to participants, and the effects of treatment are promising. A fully powered randomised controlled trial of the intervention is warranted.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareThinkingAdultCognitive Behavioral TherapyDelusionsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedParanoid DisordersPilot ProjectsPsychotic DisordersBelief flexibilityCBTPsychosisReasoning

Identifiers

PMID25770671
PMCPMC4429971

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.