Graded group procedures for long term regressed schizophrenics

Social skills programmes for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Social skills programmes (SSP) are treatment strategies aimed at enhancing the social performance and reducing the distress and difficulty experienced by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and can be incorporated as part of the rehabilitation package for people with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective is to investigate the effects of social skills training programmes, compared to standard care, for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2006 and December 2011) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials.A further search for studies has been conducted by the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group in 2015, 37 citations have been found and are currently being assessed by review authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all relevant randomised controlled trials for social skills programmes versus standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 randomised trials (975 participants). These evaluated social skills programmes versus standard care, or discussion group. We found evidence in favour of social skills programmes compared to standard care on all measures of social functioning. We also found that rates of relapse and rehospitalisation were lower for social skills compared to standard care (relapse: 2 RCTs, n = 263, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.79, very low quality evidence), (rehospitalisation: 1 RCT, n = 143, RR 0.53 CI 0.30 to 0.93, very low quality evidence) and participants' mental state results (1 RCT, n = 91, MD -4.01 CI -7.52 to -0.50, very low quality evidence) were better in the group receiving social skill programmes. Global state was measured in one trial by numbers not experiencing a clinical improvement, results favoured social skills (1 RCT, n = 67, RR 0.29 CI 0.12 to 0.68, very low quality evidence). Quality of life was also improved in the social skills programme compared to standard care (1 RCT, n = 112, MD -7.60 CI -12.18 to -3.02, very low quality evidence). However, when social skills programmes were compared to a discussion group control, we found no significant differences in the participants social functioning, relapse rates, mental state or quality of life, again the quality of evidence for these outcomes was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to standard care, social skills training may improve the social skills of people with schizophrenia and reduce relapse rates, but at present, the evidence is very limited with data rated as very low quality. When social skills training was compared to discussion there was no difference on patients outcomes. Cultural differences might limit the applicability of the current results, as most reported studies were conducted in China. Whether social skills training can improve social functioning of people with schizophrenia in different settings remains unclear and should be investigated in a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Supportive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of supportive therapy compared with standard care, or other treatments in addition to standard care for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the risk ratio (RR) using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) fixed-effect with 95% CIs. We estimated heterogeneity (I(2) technique) and publication bias. We used GRADE to rate quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Four new trials were added after the 2012 search. The review now includes 24 relevant studies, with 2126 participants. Overall, the evidence was very low quality.We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes of relapse, hospitalisation and general functioning between supportive therapy and standard care.There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (4 RCTs, n = 306, RR 1.82 CI 1.11 to 2.99, very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement in mental state (3 RCTs, n = 194, RR 1.27 CI 1.04 to 1.54, very low quality of evidence) and satisfaction of treatment for the recipient of care (1 RCT, n = 45, RR 3.19 CI 1.01 to 10.7, very low quality of evidence). For this comparison, we found no evidence of significant differences for rate of relapse, leaving the study early and quality of life.When we compared supportive therapy to cognitive behavioural therapy CBT), we again found no significant differences in primary outcomes. There were very limited data to compare supportive therapy with family therapy and psychoeducation, and no studies provided data regarding clinically important change in general functioning, one of our primary outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies where we graded the evidence as very low quality. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

Supportive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of supportive therapy for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (January 2004), supplemented by manual reference searching and contact with authors of relevant reviews or studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the relative risk (RR) fixed effect with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For statistically significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H). We estimated heterogeneity (I-square technique) and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 relevant studies. We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes between supportive therapy and standard care. There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (3 RCTs, n=241, RR 2.12 CI 1.2 to 3.6, NNT 8) but not relapse rates (5 RCTs, n=270, RR 1.18 CI 0.9 to 1.5). We found that the results for general functioning significantly favoured cognitive behavioural therapy compared with supportive therapy in the short (1 RCT, n=70, WMD -9.50 CI -16.1 to -2.9), medium (1 RCT, n=67, WMD -12.6 CI -19.4 to -5.8) and long term (2 RCTs, n=78, SMD -0.50 CI -1.0 to -0.04), but the clinical significance of these findings based on few data is unclear. Participants were less likely to be satisfied with care if receiving supportive therapy compared with cognitive behavioural treatment (1 RCT, n=45, RR 3.19 CI 1.0 to 10.1, NNT 4 CI 2 to 736). The results for mental state and symptoms were unclear in the comparisons with other therapies. No data were available to assess the impact of supportive therapy on engagement with structured activities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

Supportive therapy for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Supportive therapy is often used in everyday clinical care and in evaluative studies of other treatments.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects of supportive therapy for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register of trials (January 2004), supplemented by manual reference searching and contact with authors of relevant reviews or studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials involving people with schizophrenia and comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected studies, quality rated these and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated the relative risk (RR) fixed effect with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we undertook intention-to-treat analyses. For statistically significant results, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H). We estimated heterogeneity (I-square technique) and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 relevant studies. We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes between supportive therapy and standard care. There were, however, significant differences favouring other psychological or psychosocial treatments over supportive therapy. These included hospitalisation rates (3 RCTs, n=241, RR 2.12 CI 1.2 to 3.6, NNT 8) but not relapse rates (5 RCTs, n=270, RR 1.18 CI 0.9 to 1.5). We found that the results for general functioning significantly favoured cognitive behavioural therapy compared with supportive therapy in the short (1 RCT, n=70, WMD -9.50 CI -16.1 to -2.9), medium (1 RCT, n=67, WMD -12.6 CI -19.4 to -5.8) and long term (2 RCTs, n=78, SMD -0.50 CI -1.0 to -0.04), but the clinical significance of these findings based on few data is unclear. Participants were less likely to be satisfied with care if receiving supportive therapy compared with cognitive behavioural treatment (1 RCT, n=45, RR 3.19 CI 1.0 to 10.1, NNT 4 CI 2 to 736). The results for mental state and symptoms were unclear in the comparisons with other therapies. No data were available to assess the impact of supportive therapy on engagement with structured activities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care. There are several outcomes, including hospitalisation and general mental state, indicating advantages for other psychological therapies over supportive therapy but these findings are based on a few small studies. Future research would benefit from larger trials that use supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than the comparator.

Distraction techniques for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Distraction techniques are a form of coping strategies used in cognitive behavioural techniques. They may be of value as an adjunctive treatment for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like illnesses.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of distraction techniques for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (October 2003), manually searched reference lists and contacted relevant authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing distraction techniques with other treatments for schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We reliably selected, quality assessed and data extracted studies. We excluded data where more than 50% of participants in any group were lost to follow up. For binary outcomes, we calculated a fixed effects risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), along with the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H). For continuous data we calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD).

MAIN RESULTS

In terms of mental state, distraction techniques did not have a clear effect (n=60, 1 RCT, MD endpoint BPRS 1.60 CI -0.49 to 3.69). Distraction does not obviously engage people in the studies (n=159, 5 RCTs, RR leaving the study before completion 1.08 CI 0.72 to 1.63).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians, researchers, policy makers and recipients of care cannot be confident of the effects of distraction techniques from the findings of this review. The few pioneering studies are small, short and poorly reported. Further data from already completed trials might help inform practice, but more trials do seem to be justified as some of these potentially simple techniques, even if their effect is negligible, could be widely implemented and prove more acceptable than other more intrusive treatments.

Group treatment assignment for outpatients with schizophrenia: integrating recent clinical and research findings

Many mental health clinics rely heavily on group treatment in the outpatient care of individuals with schizophrenia. Groups are used because they economize clinician time and provide social interaction for isolated patients. Empirical evidence suggests that groups, combined with medication, are at least as effective as other common treatments. Many group formats and techniques have been used. Choices are often based on pragmatism or inclination, rather than theory or experiment. The authors review recent findings from research on the neurobiology of schizophrenia, its natural history, and the impact of psychosocial factors in its course and treatment. From these findings, they elaborate research based principles for outpatient group therapy in schizophrenia. They describe three distinct formats for group treatment, and delineate the scope of use for each. Finally, they propose guidelines for assignment of patients to appropriate group treatments.

Use and Modifications in Group Psychotherapy with Chronic Schizophrenic Outpatients

The authors have presented a framework for group psychotherapy with chronic schizophrenic outpatients which is based on belief that these patients can engage in moderately intensive insight-oriented therapy. The functional deficits and the interpersonal needs of these patients have been identified, and a strategy of intervention has been developed to ameliorate these deficits and facilitate gratification of these needs. Modifications in traditional group approaches are necessary for these groups to be a success. These include alterations in: 1) the group contract, 2) role and tasks of the therapists, and 3) use of special techniques. The authors believe that use of these techniques, informed by genuine interest in and empathy for these patients, will lead to a successful group experience for all.