ArticlePsychology and psychotherapy2022
A life more ordinary: A peer research method qualitative study of the Feeling Safe Programme for persecutory delusions.
Article in Psychology and psychotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety behaviors maintain persecutory ideation in individuals with psychotic disorders: evidence from an ecological momentary assessment study.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Article
- A life more ordinary: A peer research method qualitative study of the Feeling Safe Programme for persecutory delusions.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Feeling Safe Programme is a cognitive therapy developed to improve outcomes for individuals with persecutory delusions. It is theoretically driven, modular and personalised, with differences in therapeutic style and content compared with first-generation cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis.
objectivesWe set out to understand the participant experience of the Feeling Safe Programme.
designA qualitative study employing interpretative phenomenological analysis.
methodsUsing a peer research approach, semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with six people who had received the Feeling Safe Programme as part of the outcome clinical trial.
resultsParticipants spoke of feeling 'unsafe' in their daily lives before the intervention. Openness to the intervention, facilitated by identification with the programme name, and willingness to take an active role were considered important participant attributes for successful outcomes. The therapist was viewed as a professional friend who cared about the individual, which enabled trust to form and the opportunity to consider new knowledge and alternative perspectives. Doing difficult tasks gradually and repeatedly to become comfortable with them was important for change to occur. The intervention helped people to do ordinary things that others take for granted and was perceived to produce lasting changes.
conclusionsThe Feeling Safe Programme was subjectively experienced very positively by interview participants, which is consistent with the results of the clinical trial. The successful interaction of the participant and therapist enabled trust to form, which meant that repeated practice of difficult tasks could lead to re-engagement with valued everyday activities.
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.