Trial reportBMJ open2018
The COMMAND trial of cognitive therapy for harmful compliance with command hallucinations (CTCH): a qualitative study of acceptability and tolerability in the UK.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Does Individual Psychotherapy Promote Recovery for Persons with Psychosis? A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies to Understand the Patient's Experience.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Childhood Trauma in Clozapine-Resistant Schizophrenia: Prevalence, and Relationship With Symptoms.Schizophrenia bulletin open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore service user experiences of a 9-month cognitive behavioural therapy for command hallucinations in the context of a randomised controlled trial including their views on acceptability and tolerability of the intervention.
designQualitative study using semistructured interviews.
settingThe study took place across three sites: Birmingham, Manchester and London. Interviews were carried out at the sites where therapy took place which included service bases and participants' homes.
participantsOf 197 patients who consented to the trial, 98 received the Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Command Hallucinations (CTCH) intervention; 25 (15 males) of whom were randomly selected and consented to the qualitative study. The mean age of the sample was 42 years, and 68% were white British.
resultsTwo superordinate themes were identified: participants' views about the aspects of CTCH they found most helpful; and participants' concerns with therapy. Helpful aspects of the therapy included gaining control over the voices, challenging the power and omniscience of the voices, following a structured approach, normalisation and mainstreaming of the experience of voices, and having peer support alongside the therapy. Concerns with the therapy included anxiety about completing CTCH tasks, fear of talking back to voices, the need for follow-up and ongoing support and concerns with adaptability of the therapy.
conclusionsInterpretation: CTCH was generally well received and the narratives validated the overall approach. Participants did not find it an easy therapy to undertake as they were challenging a persecutor they believed had great power to harm; many were concerned, anxious and occasionally disappointed that the voices did not disappear altogether. The trusting relationship with the therapist was crucial. The need for continued support was expressed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62304114, Pre-results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.