Trial reportPsychology and psychotherapy2025
A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.
Trial report in Psychology and psychotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2025Trial
- Interventions targeting identity in adults with psychosis, severe mental illness, brain injury, or intellectual disability: a transdiagnostic scoping review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Enhancing social cognition in psychosis - the potential role of open dialogue.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLoneliness in people who experience psychosis is common and associated with poor mental health. In this randomised trial, we tested the feasibility and acceptability of an adapted Groups for Health (G4H) intervention for loneliness, delivered in group or individual format.
designMixed methods, two-arm feasibility randomised controlled trial.
methodsForty individuals who self-identified as having psychosis were recruited from UK mental health care services, recovery colleges and charities. G4H was modified for people with psychosis, with participants randomised to receive the intervention delivered via group (N = 20) or individual (N = 20) format. The primary outcomes related to trial acceptability and feasibility. Exploratory repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests evaluated differences between formats over time in loneliness, wellbeing and possible mechanisms of change including social identification, identity integration and perceived in-group and out-group empathy. Measures were completed at baseline, end of treatment and 1- and 6-month follow-up.
resultsRecruitment, retention and trial acceptability ratings for both group and individual formats of G4H were acceptable to good. No participants reported experiencing a serious adverse event. Exploratory ANOVAs indicated no differences related to format but positive change in key variables of loneliness, wellbeing, social identification and identity integration over time. T-tests for loneliness indicated that this change was step-wise from baseline, through end of treatment to 1-month follow-up.
conclusionsG4H is a feasible intervention for people with psychosis who identify as lonely and it can be delivered in either group or individual formats. This feasibility trial provides support for a future full randomised controlled trial.
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.