Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29719118›Full record

ArticlePsychology and psychotherapy2019

Cognitive Analytic Therapy for psychosis: A case series.

Peter J Taylor, Alex Perry, Paul Hutton, Ranil Tan, Naomi Fisher, Chiara Focone, Diane Griffiths, Claire Seddon

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology and psychotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
28.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter J TaylorDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1407-0985
Alex PerryCommunity Links, Leeds, UK.
Paul HuttonSchool of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, UK.
Ranil TanLeeds and York Partnerships NHS Foundation Trust, West Yorkshire, UK.
Naomi FisherSpectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, University of Lancaster, UK.
Chiara FoconeNHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Diane GriffithsLiverpool Early Intervention Service, Mersey Care NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Claire SeddonLiverpool Early Intervention Service, Mersey Care NHS Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Mersey Care NHS Trust · GBCommunity Link · USEdinburgh Napier University · GBLeeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBMental Health Research UK · GBNHS Lothian · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCognitive Analytic Therapy (CAT) is an effective psychological intervention for several different mental health conditions. However, whether it is acceptable, safe, and beneficial for people with psychosis remains unclear, as is the feasibility of providing and evaluating it within a research context. The aim of this study was to begin to address these questions and to obtain for the first time a rich and detailed understanding of the experience of receiving CAT for psychosis.

designA mixed-methods case series design.

methodSeven individuals who experienced non-affective psychosis received CAT. They completed assessments at the start of CAT, 16 weeks, and 28 weeks post-baseline. Qualitative interviews were completed with four individuals following completion of or withdrawal from therapy.

resultsSix participants attended at least four sessions of therapy and four went on to complete therapy. There were no serious adverse events, and self-reported adverse experiences were minimal. Qualitative interviews suggested CAT is acceptable and provided a way to understand and work therapeutically with psychosis. There was limited evidence of change in psychotic symptoms, but improvement in perceived recovery and personality integration was observed.

conclusionsThe results suggest that CAT is a safe and acceptable intervention for psychosis. Personality integration, perceived recovery, and functioning are relevant outcomes for future evaluations of CAT for psychosis. PRACTITIONER POINTS: It is feasible to conduct research evaluating CAT for people with psychosis. Within this case series, CAT appears acceptable and safe to individuals with psychosis. Within this case series, clients reported that CAT was a positive and helpful experience. There is a mixed picture with regard to secondary outcomes, but the design and aims of this case series limit conclusion that can be drawn from this data.

Indexed as

Outcome and Process Assessment, Health CareAdultCognitive Behavioral TherapyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMalePatient Acceptance of Health CarePsychotic DisordersYoung Adultcase seriesCognitive Analytic Therapyfeasibilitypsychosis

Identifiers

PMID29719118
PMCPMC6766854
OpenAlexW2780770522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.