Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) can be effective in the general population of people with schizophrenia. It is still unclear whether CBT can be effectively used in the population of people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

To assess the effects of adding cognitive behavioural therapy to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis.

We conducted a systematic search on 6 March 2022 in the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, and WHO ICTRP.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT added to standard care vs standard care in first-episode or recent-onset psychosis, in patients of any age.

Two review authors (amongst SFM, CC, LK and IB) independently screened references for inclusion, extracted data from eligible studies and assessed the risk of bias using RoB2. Study authors were contacted for missing data and additional information. Our primary outcome was general mental state measured on a validated rating scale. Secondary outcomes included other specific measures of mental state, global state, relapse, admission to hospital, functioning, leaving the study early, cognition, quality of life, satisfaction with care, self-injurious or aggressive behaviour, adverse events, and mortality.

We included 28 studies, of which 26 provided data on 2407 participants (average age 24 years). The mean sample size in the included studies was 92 participants (ranging from 19 to 444) and duration ranged between 26 and 52 weeks. When looking at the results at combined time points (mainly up to one year after start of the intervention), CBT added to standard care was associated with a greater reduction in overall symptoms of schizophrenia (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.47 to -0.08, 20 RCTs, n = 1508, I2 = 68%, substantial heterogeneity, low certainty of the evidence), and also with a greater reduction in positive (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.06, 22 RCTs, n = 1565, I² = 52%, moderate heterogeneity), negative (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.11, 22 RCTs, n = 1651, I² = 0%) and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.01, 18 RCTs, n = 1182, I² = 0%) than control. CBT added to standard care was also associated with a greater improvement in the global state (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.67 to -0.01, 4 RCTs, n = 329, I² = 47%, moderate heterogeneity) and in functioning (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05, 18 RCTs, n = 1241, I² = 53%, moderate heterogeneity, moderate certainty of the evidence) than control. We did not find a difference between CBT added to standard care and control in terms of number of participants with relapse (relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.18, 7 RCTs, n = 693, I² = 48%, low certainty of the evidence), leaving the study early for any reason (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05, 25 RCTs, n = 2242, I² = 12%, moderate certainty of the evidence), adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.97, 1 RCT, n = 43, very low certainty of the evidence) and the other investigated outcomes.

This review synthesised the latest evidence on CBT added to standard care for people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis. The evidence identified by this review suggests that people with a first-episode or recent-onset psychosis may benefit from CBT additionally to standard care for multiple outcomes (overall, positive, negative and depressive symptoms of schizophrenia, global state and functioning). Future studies should better define this population, for which often heterogeneous definitions are used.

The objective of the study was to investigate the development of clinical outcomes of young people with early psychosis in a specialized inpatient treatment and assess the feasibility of such an intervention in an inpatient setting. The study was a prospective cohort study of patients with early psychosis treated at the specialized inpatient treatment "Fühinterventions-und Therapiezentrum, FRITZ" (early intervention and therapy center) in Berlin, Germany. The primary outcomes were attitudes towards psychiatric medication and patient satisfaction with treatment after 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were clinical symptoms, functioning, remission, recovery, all-cause treatment discontinuation, and rehospitalisation at 6 and 12 months after inpatient treatment. We recruited 95 inpatients with early psychosis. Attitudes towards psychiatric medication (Δ_6weeks = 3.00, d_6weeks = 0.55; Δ_6mo = 2.15, d_6mo = 0.35; Δ_12mo = 3.03, d_12mo = 0.52) and patient satisfaction (Δ_6weeks = 0.21, d_6weeks = 0.40; Δ_6mo = 0.32, d_6mo = 0.43; Δ_12mo = 0.13, d_12mo = 0.17) changed with medium effect sizes at six weeks up to a 6- and 12-month follow-up. Clinical outcomes changed significantly with medium-to-large-effect sizes over 12 months CGI_Δ12mo = 1.64, d_12mo = -1.12; PANSS total_Δ12mo = 20.10, d_12mo = -0.76; GAF_Δ12mo = 19.58, d_12mo = 1.25). The all-cause treatment discontinuation rate was 13.69% (n = 13) at a 6-month and 35.79% (n = 34) at a 12-month follow-up. The rehospitalization rate was 30.53% (n = 29) at a 6-month and 43.16% (n = 41) at a 12-month follow-up. Patients with specialized inpatient treatment for early psychosis showed improvements in attitude towards psychiatric medication, patient satisfaction, symptoms, and functioning for up to 12 months.Trial registration: DRKS00024351, 2021/02/11 retrospectively registered.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common disease that requires patient self-management with chronic medications. Adherence rates for RA medications are suboptimal. This study explores medication adherence and self-efficacy behaviors among RA patients.

We conducted a qualitative study comprising focus groups and individual interviews. Nineteen participants were recruited and screened to participate in three 90-minute focus groups (n = 13) and six 60-minute individual interviews. We created and maintained a codebook to analyze data. Interviews were analyzed by using NViVo qualitative analysis software.

Key points in participant interviews were 1) self-efficacy as influenced by the ability to establish routines, and having an understanding relationship with their healthcare provider; 2) self-efficacy to adjust medications depended on having permission from providers to adjust medications, perceptions of the effectiveness of medications, and confidence in self-knowledge to make appropriate adjustments; and 3) changes in self-efficacy over time were influenced by initial denial and later acceptance of the diagnosis. Participant interviews revealed that medication adherence is a spectrum that ranges from adherent to nonadherent.

Participants' experience with RA medications revealed varied underlying reasons for adherence behaviors. Recognizing adherence as a dynamic behavior has important implications for how adherence interventions are designed. For example, participants reported adjusting medications in response to the unpredictable nature of RA. Interventions could collect information about RA symptoms and be tailored to provide adherence support at times when patients need it most. The importance of self-efficacy in influencing participants' adherence behaviors is an area for continuing research among patients and providers.

Providing optimal care to patients with recent-onset psychosis can improve outcomes and reduce relapse. However, there is a lack of consistency of the implementation of guidelines for such patients across the Asia-Pacific region. We determined a pragmatic set of recommendations for use on a day-to-day basis to help provide optimal care at this crucial stage of illness. The recommendations were developed over a series of meetings by an international faculty of 15 experts from the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, and South Africa. A structured search of the PubMed database was conducted. This was further developed based on the faculty's clinical experience and knowledge of the literature into 10 key aspects of optimal care for patients during the first five years of a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, with particular relevance to the Asia-Pacific region. Several common principles emerged: adherence to antipsychotic medications is crucial; substance abuse, psychiatric and medical comorbidities should be addressed; psychosocial interventions play a pivotal role; and family members can play a vital role in overall patient care. By following these recommendations, clinicians may improve outcomes for patients with recent-onset psychosis.

The manuscript correspond to an editorial in order to assess the most important and effective interventions for people with psychosis in the early stages.

Comprehensive coordinated specialty care programs for first-episode psychosis have been widely implemented in other countries but not in the United States. The National Institute of Mental Health's Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE) initiative focused on the development and evaluation of first-episode treatment programs designed for the U.S. health care system. This article describes the background, rationale, and nature of the intervention developed by the RAISE Early Treatment Program project-known as the NAVIGATE program-with a particular focus on its psychosocial components. NAVIGATE is a team-based, multicomponent treatment program designed to be implemented in routine mental health treatment settings and aimed at guiding people with a first episode of psychosis (and their families) toward psychological and functional health. The core services provided in the NAVIGATE program include the family education program (FEP), individual resiliency training (IRT), supported employment and education (SEE), and individualized medication treatment. NAVIGATE embraces a shared decision-making approach with a focus on strengths and resiliency and on collaboration with clients and family members in treatment planning and reviews. The NAVIGATE program has the potential to fill an important gap in the U.S. health care system by providing a comprehensive intervention specially designed to meet the unique treatment needs of persons recovering from a first episode of psychosis. A cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing NAVIGATE with usual community care has recently been completed.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Most first-episode schizophrenia patients will stop their medication after their acute symptoms improve. Understanding the salient motivations and attitudes that drive adherence--as well as nonadherence--is an important part of developing strategies to prevent or delay nonadherence during the early phases of the illness.

Self-reported reasons for adherence and nonadherence among first-episode and multi-episode patients with schizophrenia were obtained from cross-sectional adherence interviews from two prospective adherence studies: one composed of a first-episode sample (n=33) and the other with recently relapsing multi-episode patients (n=16). Both groups received the Rating of Medication Influences (ROMI) Scale at approximately 16 to 20 weeks after an acute psychotic episode. The specific ROMI items were ranked in order of percentage (%) strong, and were compared both within each patient group for rank order of importance, and also compared between groups to determine the differences in specific adherence and nonadherence influences.

The doctor-patient relationship was more likely to be endorsed as a strong adherence influence in the first-episode sample (74%) than in the multi-episode sample (13%, X²=18.07, p<.01). Change in physical appearance attributed to medication was a more commonly endorsed nonadherence influence for the multi-episode sample (25%) relative to the first-episode sample (0%, X²=9.2, p<.01).

The doctor-patient relationship stands out as being the major reason for ongoing adherence for first-episode schizophrenia patients. Our post hoc interpretation is that lack of prior experience with medication and treatment elevates the importance of the relationship with the treating clinician for first-episode patients.

Although non-adherence is common across all branches of medicine, psychotic disorders pose additional challenges that increase its risk. Despite the importance of non-adherence, clinicians generally spend too little time on assessing and addressing adherence attitudes and behaviors. Importantly, how adherence is measured significantly impacts the findings, and the most frequently employed methods of asking patients or judging adherence indirectly based on efficacy or tolerability information have poor validity. Novel technologies are being developed that directly assess adherence and that can also be used to both provide real-time feedback to clinicians and serve as an intervention with patients. Several treatments are available that can positively impact adherence. Among psychosocial interventions, those combining multiple approaches and involving multiple domains seem to be most effective. Although long-acting injectable antipsychotics are theoretically a very powerful tool to assure adherence and signal non-adherence, recent results from randomized controlled trials failed to show superiority compared to oral antipsychotics. These data are in contrast to nationwide cohort studies and mirror-image studies, which arguably include more representative patients receiving long-acting antipsychotics in clinical practice. This disconnect suggests that traditional randomized controlled trials are not necessarily the best way to study interventions that are thought to work via reducing non-adherence. Clearly, non-adherence is likely to remain a major public health problem despite treatment advances. However, increasing knowledge about factors affecting adherence and leveraging novel technologies can enhance its early assessment and adequate management, particularly in patients with psychotic disorders.

Proponents of early intervention have argued that outcomes might be improved if more therapeutic efforts were focused on the early stages of schizophrenia or on people with prodromal symptoms. Early intervention in schizophrenia has two elements that are distinct from standard care: early detection, and phase-specific treatment (phase-specific treatment is a psychological, social or physical treatment developed, or modified, specifically for use with people at an early stage of the illness).Early detection and phase-specific treatment may both be offered as supplements to standard care, or may be provided through a specialised early intervention team. Early intervention is now well established as a therapeutic approach in America, Europe and Australasia.

To evaluate the effects of: (a) early detection; (b) phase-specific treatments; and (c) specialised early intervention teams in the treatment of people with prodromal symptoms or first-episode psychosis.

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (March 2009), inspected reference lists of all identified trials and reviews and contacted experts in the field.

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) designed to prevent progression to psychosis in people showing prodromal symptoms, or to improve outcome for people with first-episode psychosis. Eligible interventions, alone and in combination, included: early detection, phase-specific treatments, and care from specialised early intervention teams. We accepted cluster-randomised trials but excluded non-randomised trials.

We reliably selected studies, quality rated them and extracted data. For dichotomous data, we estimated relative risks (RR), with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat/harm statistic (NNT/H) and used intention-to-treat analysis (ITT).

Studies were diverse, mostly small, undertaken by pioneering researchers and with many methodological limitations (18 RCTs, total n=1808). Mostly, meta-analyses were inappropriate. For the six studies addressing prevention of psychosis for people with prodromal symptoms, olanzapine seemed of little benefit (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.58 CI 0.3 to 1.2), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) equally so (n=60, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.50 CI 0.2 to 1.7). A risperidone plus CBT plus specialised team did have benefit over specialist team alone at six months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR conversion to psychosis 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 4 CI 2 to 20), but this was not seen by 12 months (n=59, 1 RCT, RR 0.54 CI 0.2 to 1.3). Omega 3 fatty acids (EPA) had advantage over placebo (n=76, 1 RCT, RR transition to psychosis 0.13 CI 0.02 to 1.0, NNT 6 CI 5 to 96). We know of no replications of this finding.The remaining trials aimed to improve outcome in first-episode psychosis. Phase-specific CBT for suicidality seemed to have little effect, but the single study was small (n=56, 1 RCT, RR suicide 0.81 CI 0.05 to 12.26). Family therapy plus a specialised team in the Netherlands did not clearly affect relapse (n=76, RR 1.05 CI 0.4 to 3.0), but without the specialised team in China it may (n=83, 1 RCT, RR admitted to hospital 0.28 CI 0.1 to 0.6, NNT 3 CI 2 to 6). The largest and highest quality study compared specialised team with standard care. Leaving the study early was reduced (n=547, 1 RCT, RR 0.59 CI 0.4 to 0.8, NNT 9 CI 6 to 18) and compliance with treatment improved (n=507, RR stopped treatment 0.20 CI 0.1 to 0.4, NNT 9 CI 8 to 12). The mean number of days spent in hospital at one year were not significantly different (n=507, WMD, -1.39 CI -2.8 to 0.1), neither were data for 'Not hospitalised' by five years (n=547, RR 1.05 CI 0.90 to 1.2). There were no significant differences in numbers 'not living independently' by one year (n=507, RR 0.55 CI 0.3 to 1.2). At five years significantly fewer participants in the treatment group were 'not living independently' (n=547, RR 0.42 CI 0.21 to 0.8, NNT 19 CI 14 to 62). When phase-specific treatment (CBT) was compared with befriending no significant differences emerged in the number of participants being hospitalised over the 12 months (n=62, 1 RCT, RR 1.08 CI 0.59 to 1.99).Phase-specific treatment E-EPA oils suggested no benefit (n=80, 1 RCT, RR no response 0.90 CI 0.6 to 1.4) as did phase-specific treatment brief intervention (n=106, 1 RCT, RR admission 0.86 CI 0.4 to 1.7). Phase-specific ACE found no benefit but participants given vocational intervention were more likely to be employed (n=41, 1 RCT, RR 0.39 CI 0.21 to 0.7, NNT 2 CI 2 to 4). Phase-specific cannabis and psychosis therapy did not show benefit (n=47, RR cannabis use 1.30 CI 0.8 to 2.2) and crisis assessment did not reduce hospitalisation (n=98, RR 0.85 CI 0.6 to 1.3). Weight was unaffected by early behavioural intervention.

There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.

Nonadherence to antipsychotic medication is highly prevalent in patients with schizophrenia and has a deleterious impact on the course of the illness. This review seeks to determine the interventions that were examined in the past decade to improve adherence rates.

The literature between 2000 and 2009 was searched for randomized controlled trials which compared a psychosocial intervention with another intervention or with treatment as usual in patients with schizophrenia.

Fifteen studies were identified, with a large heterogeneity in design, adherence measures and outcome variables. Interventions that offered more sessions during a longer period of time, and especially those with a continuous focus on adherence, seem most likely to be successful, as well as pragmatic interventions that focus on attention and memory problems. The positive effects of adapted forms of Motivational Interviewing found in earlier studies, such as compliance therapy, have not been confirmed.

Nonadherence remains a challenging problem in schizophrenia. The heterogeneity of factors related to nonadherence calls for individually tailored approaches to promote adherence. More evidence is required to determine the effects of specific interventions.

The Graduated Recovery Intervention Program (GRIP) is a new individual cognitive-behavioral therapy program designed to facilitate functional recovery in people who have experienced an initial episode of psychosis. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and tolerability of the GRIP intervention, and to compare the effectiveness of GRIP versus treatment as usual (TAU) for improving specific clinical and psychosocial outcomes. Forty-six individuals with first episode psychosis were randomized to GRIP+TAU or TAU alone. Primary outcomes focused on social and role functioning, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included psychotic symptoms, depression, substance use, social support, attitudes toward medications, well-being, and hospitalizations. The results indicate that GRIP was well-tolerated, as evidenced by good attendance and low drop-out rates, and well-received (based on positive feedback from participants). Although the majority of mixed model analyses were not statistically significant, examination of within-group changes and effect sizes suggests an advantage for GRIP over TAU in improving functional outcomes. These advantages and the fact that the GRIP intervention demonstrated feasibility and tolerability suggest that this intervention is worthy of further investigation.

Poor adherence to medication can have devastating consequences for patients with serious mental illness. The literature review and recommendations in this article are reprinted from The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: Adherence Problems in Patients with Serious and Persistent Mental Illness, published in 2009. The expert consensus survey (39 questions, 521 options) on adherence problems in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder was completed by 41 experts in 2008. This article first reviews the literature on interventions aimed at improving adherence. It then presents the experts' recommendations for targeting factors that can contribute to nonadherence and relates them to the literature. The following psychosocial/programmatic and pharmacologic interventions were rated first line for specific problems that can lead to nonadherence: ongoing symptom/ side-effect monitoring for persistent symptoms or side effects; services targeting logistic problems; medication monitoring/environmental supports (e.g., Cognitive Adaptation Training, assertive community treatment) for lack of routines or cognitive deficits; and adjusting the dose or switching to a different oral antipsychotic for persistent side effects (also high second-line for persistent symptoms). Among pharmacologic interventions, the experts gave high second-line ratings to switching to a long-acting antipsychotic when lack of insight, substance use, persistent symptoms, logistic problems, lack of routines, or lack of family/ social support interfere with adherence and to simplifying the treatment regimen when logistic problems, lack of routines, cognitive deficits, or lack of family/social support interfere with adherence. Psychosocial/programmatic interventions that received high second-line ratings in a number of situations included medication monitoring/environmental supports, patient psychoeducation, more frequent and/or longer visits if possible, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), family-focused therapy, and services targeting logistic problems. It is important to identify specific factors that may be contributing to a patient's adherence problems in order to customize interventions and to consider using a multifaceted approach since multiple problems may be involved.

Lack of adherence to prescribed antipsychotic medication is recognized as a leading reason for poor outcomes and symptomatic relapse among patients with schizophrenia. There is evidence, however, that treating clinicians are often either unaware that their patients are not taking their medication or overestimate their adherence.

A structured instrument, the Medication Adherence Assessment Tool (MAAT), was developed by an expert group of clinicians convened and sponsored by Ortho-McNeil Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. Clinicians were asked to use the MAAT to rate the degree of adherence among a group of their patients who were prescribed antipsychotic medications. We compared the results of the MAAT evaluation with a validated, indirect measure of treatment adherence derived from pharmacy data, the medication possession ratio (MPR).

Although the MAAT has good internal reliability, we found that MAAT scores were not significantly correlated with MPR. Conclusion. These findings suggest that, even when using a structured instrument, clinicians are unable to accurately assess the degree of treatment adherence among patients prescribed antipsychotic medications. Informing clinicians as to measures of medication possession, such as the MPR, appears to be a low-cost, minimally intrusive, and effective way to improve clinician assessment of patient adherence and thereby overall clinical outcomes.

Antipsychotics are often the first line of treatment for individuals with schizophrenia (). One challenge to effective treatment is lack of adherence to prescribed medication. Lower rates of adherence are associated with considerably higher rates of relapse and poorer course of illness. Therefore studying the characteristics that may be related to medication adherence is important. Coping styles may be one such factor. Individuals use a variety of coping mechanisms to manage and navigate difficult life events, including mental illness (). In the present study, 40 individuals with schizophrenia were assessed regarding their coping styles and medication adherence practices. As hypothesized, it was found that denial coping was inversely related to medication adherence. However, contrary to expectations, acceptance coping was not related to medication adherence. These findings suggest that targeting denial coping strategies in treatment may help foster more optimal strategies for managing schizophrenia.