Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30458850›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

The U&I study: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a pre-cognitive behavioural therapy digital 'informed choice' intervention to improve attitudes towards uptake and implementation of CBT for psychosis.

Kathryn Greenwood, Katie Alford, Iain O'Leary, Emmanuelle Peters, Amy Hardy, Kate Cavanagh, Andy P Field, Richard de Visser, David Fowler, Matthew Davies and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. The impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the SlowMo study: Reflections on peer innovation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Kathryn GreenwoodR&D Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Millview Hospital Site, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK. k.e.greenwood@sussex.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7899-8980
Katie AlfordBrighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9RP, UK.
Iain O'LearyR&D Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Millview Hospital Site, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Emmanuelle PetersDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Amy HardyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Kate CavanaghSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Pevensey Building, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9RP, UK.
Andy P FieldSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Pevensey Building, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9RP, UK.
Richard de VisserSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Pevensey Building, Falmer, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9RP, UK.
David FowlerR&D Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Millview Hospital Site, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Matthew DaviesR&D Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Millview Hospital Site, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Alexandra PapamichailR&D Department, Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Sussex Education Centre, Millview Hospital Site, Nevill Avenue, Hove, BN3 7HZ, UK.
Philippa GaretyDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
University of Sussex · GBKing's College London · GBSussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust · GBBrighton and Sussex Medical School · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0213-30125Research for Patient Benefit Programme PB-PG-0213-30125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt least 40% of people with psychosis have persistent distressing symptoms despite optimal medication treatment. Cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is the only NICE-recommended individual therapy for psychosis, with effects on symptoms, distress and quality of life. Yet <10% of service-users receive it and 94% of trusts struggle to provide it. Of those offered it, 22-43% refuse or do not attend. We have developed a new pre-CBTp informed choice intervention to address knowledge and attitudes that influence uptake and implementation and now want to test it in a feasibility trial.

methodsThe design is a two-arm, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), with 1:1 randomisation, stratified by participant group and site. Participants are 40 psychosis patients and 40 clinicians, who are ambivalent towards uptake or implementation of CBTp. Sites are community and inpatient services in Sussex and London. The intervention is a pre-CBT digital psychoeducation intervention designed to address identified knowledge and attitudinal barriers to uptake and implementation of CBTp, incorporating behaviour change mechanisms, and supported by animated introductory, patient and clinician stories. The comparator is the NHS choices website for CBT. The primary aim is to assess clinical feasibility (recruitment, randomisation, acceptability, use, delivery, outcome measurement, retention). A secondary aim is a preliminary evaluation of efficacy. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, post intervention, and one-month follow-up (blind to treatment arm). The primary efficacy outcome is likelihood of offering/taking up CBTp. Secondary outcomes include knowledge and attitudes towards CBTp, illness perceptions, empowerment, psychological wellbeing (patients only) and CBTp implementation (clinicians only). Use of the intervention and CBT behaviours during the follow-up period will be recorded and captured in a feedback questionnaire. Use, acceptability and experience of outcome assessment will be explored in qualitative interviews with participants (n = 6 per group). The efficacy evaluation will report descriptive data, key model parameters and 95% highest probability density intervals in a Bayesian growth model. DISCUSSION: This is the first feasibility trial of a digital 'informed choice' decision aid for the implementation of CBTp. If the trial proves feasible and demonstrates preliminary evidence of efficacy, a large multi-site trial will be warranted.

trial registrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN53107879 . Registered prospectively on 2 August 2017.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCognitive Behavioral TherapyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient ComplianceAdolescentAdultAgedDecision Support TechniquesEducation, Medical, ContinuingEnglandFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicDecision aidFeasibilityImplementationInformed choiceInterventionPilotPre-CBTPsychoeducationPsychosis

Identifiers

PMID30458850
PMCPMC6247503
OpenAlexW2901106139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.