A review of economic evaluations of health care for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Preventing psychotic disorders and effective treatment in first-episode psychosis are key priorities for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This review assessed the evidence base for the cost-effectiveness of health and social care interventions for people at risk of psychosis and for first-episode psychosis. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify relevant published full economic evaluations published before August 2020. Full-text English-language studies reporting a full economic evaluation of a health or social care intervention aiming to reduce or prevent symptoms in people at risk of psychosis or experiencing first-episode psychosis were included. Screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were performed using pre-specified criteria and forms based on the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) handbook and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist for economic evaluations. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108226). Results were summarised qualitatively. RESULTS: Searching identified 1,628 citations (1,326 following the removal of duplications). After two stages of screening 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions were varied and included multidisciplinary care, antipsychotic medication, psychological therapy, and assertive outreach. Evidence was limited in the at-risk group with only four identified studies, though all interventions were found to be cost-effective with a high probability (> 80%). A more substantial evidence base was identified for first-episode psychosis (11 studies), with a focus on early intervention (7/11 studies) which again had positive conclusions though with greater uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings generally concluded interventions were cost-effective. The evidence for the population who are at-risk of psychosis was limited, and though there were more studies for the population with first-episode psychosis, limitations of the evidence base (including generalisability and heterogeneity across the methods used) affect the certainty of conclusions.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy for the prevention and treatment of long-term social disability among young people with emerging severe mental illness (PRODIGY): randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems have poor outcomes, frequently struggling with treatment access and engagement. Outcomes may be improved by enhancing care and providing targeted psychological or psychosocial intervention. AIMS: We aimed to test the hypothesis that adding social recovery therapy (SRT) to enhanced standard care (ESC) would improve social recovery compared with ESC alone. METHOD: A pragmatic, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial (PRODIGY: ISRCTN47998710) was conducted in three UK centres. Participants (n = 270) were aged 16-25 years, with persistent social disability, defined as under 30 hours of structured activity per week, social impairment for at least 6 months and severe and complex mental health problems. Participants were randomised to ESC alone or SRT plus ESC. SRT was an individual psychosocial therapy delivered over 9 months. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity 15 months post-randomisation. RESULTS: We randomised 132 participants to SRT plus ESC and 138 to ESC alone. Mean weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months increased by 11.1 h for SRT plus ESC (mean 22.4, s.d. = 21.4) and 16.6 h for ESC alone (mean 27.7, s.d. = 26.5). There was no significant difference between arms; treatment effect was -4.44 (95% CI -10.19 to 1.31, P = 0.13). Missingness was consistently greater in the ESC alone arm. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the superiority of SRT as an adjunct to ESC. Participants in both arms made large, clinically significant improvements on all outcomes. When providing comprehensive evidence-based standard care, there are no additional gains by providing specialised SRT. Optimising standard care to ensure targeted delivery of existing interventions may further improve outcomes.

Social recovery therapy for young people with emerging severe mental illness: the Prodigy RCT.

BACKGROUND: Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Without intervention, their social problems can persist and have large economic and personal costs. Thus, more effective evidence-based interventions are needed. Social recovery therapy is an individual therapy incorporating cognitive-behavioural techniques to increase structured activity as guided by the participant's goals. OBJECTIVE: This trial aimed to test whether or not social recovery therapy provided as an adjunct to enhanced standard care over 9 months is superior to enhanced standard care alone. Enhanced standard care aimed to provide an optimal combination of existing evidence-based interventions. DESIGN: A pragmatic, single-blind, superiority randomised controlled trial was conducted in three UK centres: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants were aged 16-25 years with persistent social disability, defined as < 30 hours per week of structured activity with social impairment for at least 6 months. Additionally, participants had severe and complex mental health problems, defined as at-risk mental states for psychosis or non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems indicated by a Global Assessment of Functioning score ≤ 50 persisting for ≥ 6 months. Two hundred and seventy participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either enhanced standard care plus social recovery therapy or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome was weekly hours spent in structured activity at 15 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included subthreshold psychotic, negative and mood symptoms. Outcomes were collected at 9 and 15 months post randomisation, with maintenance assessed at 24 months. RESULTS: The addition of social recovery therapy did not significantly increase weekly hours in structured activity at 15 months (primary outcome treatment effect -4.44, 95% confidence interval -10.19 to 1.31). We found no evidence of significant differences between conditions in secondary outcomes at 15 months: Social Anxiety Interaction Scale treatment effect -0.45, 95% confidence interval -4.84 to 3.95; Beck Depression Inventory-II treatment effect -0.32, 95% confidence interval -4.06 to 3.42; Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States symptom severity 0.29, 95% confidence interval -4.35 to 4.94; or distress treatment effect 4.09, 95% confidence interval -3.52 to 11.70. Greater Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States for psychosis scores reflect greater symptom severity. We found no evidence of significant differences at 9 or 24 months. Social recovery therapy was not estimated to be cost-effective. The key limitation was that missingness of data was consistently greater in the enhanced standard care-alone arm (9% primary outcome and 15% secondary outcome missingness of data) than in the social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care arm (4% primary outcome and 9% secondary outcome missingness of data) at 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence for the clinical superiority or cost-effectiveness of social recovery therapy as an adjunct to enhanced standard care. Both arms made large improvements in primary and secondary outcomes. Enhanced standard care included a comprehensive combination of evidence-based pharmacological, psychotherapeutic and psychosocial interventions. Some results favoured enhanced standard care but the majority were not statistically significant. Future work should identify factors associated with the optimal delivery of the combinations of interventions that underpin better outcomes in this often-neglected clinical group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47998710. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 25, No. 70. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Young people with social disability and non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems are an important group. Their problems are often long-standing and they often have difficulty doing 'structured activity', such as work, sports and leisure activities (e.g. going shopping or to the cinema). They often avoid such activities because of anxiety or low mood. Other barriers may include financial and practical issues, and stigma from activity providers. Non-participation in structured activity increases the risk that mental health problems will continue and prevent these young people from reaching meaningful goals. We tested whether or not social recovery therapy might help. This is a talking and activity therapy, in which young people (participants) work individually with a social recovery therapy therapist. Social recovery therapy aims to help participants identify what activities they would like to do, practise spending more time doing them, and work through barriers to maintaining increased activity. By improving structured activity, young people feel more hopeful and better able to manage their symptoms. However, social recovery therapy has never been evaluated properly using the best research methods. The best way to evaluate treatments like this is a randomised controlled trial in which participants are allocated by chance, like tossing a coin, to have the new therapy or not to have the therapy. Both groups are followed up for a period to see if the new therapy works. We tested social recovery therapy in this way. We also tested whether or not it was cost-effective. We recruited 270 16- to 25-year-old participants in Sussex, East Anglia and Manchester. Participants had non-psychotic severe and complex mental health problems (not psychosis) and were doing < 30 hours of structured activity per week at the start of the study. All participants had enhanced standard care. This involved standard NHS treatment plus a full assessment and feedback from the study team, and a best practice guide to local support services that encouraged the best provision of standard evidence-based interventions. Half of the participants were randomly allocated to have social recovery therapy in addition to enhanced standard care over 9 months. All participants were invited to assessments 9, 15 and 24 months later. Therapists recorded the tasks and activities undertaken with participants. We asked both participants and therapists what they thought of the trial and the social recovery therapy. We found no evidence that adding social recovery therapy improved outcomes. Participants in both arms made large and clinically worthwhile improvements in structured activity and mental health outcomes. If anything, there was some evidence that people allocated to enhanced standard care improved more than those allocated to social recovery therapy plus enhanced standard care. The differences were small, however, and could have occurred by chance.

Psychological intervention, antipsychotic medication or a combined treatment for adolescents with a first episode of psychosis: the MAPS feasibility three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: When psychosis emerges in young people there is a risk of poorer outcomes, and access to evidence-based treatments is paramount. The current evidence base is limited. Antipsychotic medications show only a small benefit over placebo, but young people experience more side effects than adults. There is sparse evidence for psychological intervention. Research is needed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological intervention versus antipsychotic medication versus a combined treatment for adolescents with psychosis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS) was to determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial to answer the question of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these three treatment options. DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomised, open-blinded, evaluation feasibility trial with a single blind. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive antipsychotic medication, psychological intervention or a combination of both. A thematic qualitative study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the trial. SETTING: Early intervention in psychosis services and child and adolescent mental health services in Manchester, Oxford, Lancashire, Sussex, Birmingham, Norfolk and Suffolk, and Northumberland, Tyne and Wear. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 14-18 years experiencing a first episode of psychosis either with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis or meeting the entry criteria for early intervention in psychosis who had not received antipsychotic medication or psychological intervention within the last 3 months. INTERVENTIONS: Psychological intervention involved up to 26 hours of cognitive-behavioural therapy and six family intervention sessions over 6 months, with up to four booster sessions. Antipsychotic medication was prescribed by the participant's psychiatrist in line with usual practice. Combined treatment was a combination of psychological intervention and antipsychotic medication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was feasibility (recruitment, treatment adherence and retention). We used a three-stage progression criterion to determine feasibility. Secondary outcomes were psychosis symptoms, recovery, anxiety and depression, social and educational/occupational functioning, drug and alcohol use, health economics, adverse/metabolic side effects and adverse/serious adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 61 out of 90 (67.8%; amber zone) potential participants (psychological intervention, n = 18; antipsychotic medication, n = 22; combined treatment, n = 21). Retention to follow-up was 51 out of 61 participants (83.6%; green zone). In the psychological intervention arm and the combined treatment arm, 32 out of 39 (82.1%) participants received six or more sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy (green zone). In the combined treatment arm and the antipsychotic medication arm, 28 out of 43 (65.1%) participants received antipsychotic medication for 6 consecutive weeks (amber zone). There were no serious adverse events related to the trial and one related adverse event. Overall, the number of completed secondary outcome measures, including health economics, was small. LIMITATIONS: Medication adherence was determined by clinician report, which can be biased. The response to secondary outcomes was low, including health economics. The small sample size obtained means that the study lacked statistical power and there will be considerable uncertainty regarding estimates of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a trial comparing psychological intervention with antipsychotic medication and a combination treatment in young people with psychosis with some adaptations to the design, including adaptations to collection of health economic data to determine cost-effectiveness. FUTURE WORK: An adequately powered definitive trial is required to provide robust evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80567433. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Psychosis is a mental health problem that can involve hearing, seeing or believing things that others do not. Although many young people who experience psychosis recover well from their first episode of psychosis, others can have more serious, longer-lasting problems. There has not been a large amount of research into the treatment of psychosis in young people; therefore, it is important to test different treatments against each other in clinical trials. 'Feasibility' trials, such as the one we carried out [Managing Adolescent first-episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study (MAPS)], test whether or not it is possible to run larger trials. MAPS was a small trial that was run in seven locations in the UK. People who were aged 14­18 years and experiencing psychosis were able to take part. Each participant was randomly assigned to receive psychological treatment (cognitive­behavioural therapy and optional family therapy), antipsychotic medication or a combination of both. All of the participants met with a trial research assistant three times for assessments about well-being and symptoms. Some clinicians, participants and family members were interviewed about their opinions of the trial and treatments. The trial also had patient and public involvement; service user researchers were involved in design, interview data collection, analysis and report writing. Sixty-one young people took part in MAPS, which was around 68% of our target number. In total, 84% completed the assessments with research assistants. The results showed that, overall, all treatments were acceptable to young people and their family members. However, a higher percentage of young people actually received the 'minimum dose' of psychological treatment than the 'minimum dose' of antipsychotic medication (82% vs. 65%). Results showed that it was possible to run a larger trial such as this. However, some changes would be required to run a larger trial, such as location (focusing on urban areas with well established early intervention in psychosis teams), increasing involvement of psychiatrists and increasing the age limit for participation to 25 years.

Combined individual and family therapy in comparison to treatment as usual for people at-risk of psychosis: A feasibility study (IF CBT): Trial rationale, methodology and baseline characteristics.

AIMS: Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for psychosis recommend psychological therapy with or without family intervention for individuals at-risk of developing psychosis. NICE guidelines have a specific research recommendation to investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of combined individual and family intervention. We report the rationale, design and baseline characteristics of a feasibility study which aimed to investigate combined Individual and Family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (IFCBT) for those at-risk of developing psychosis. METHODS: The IFCBT study was a single blind, pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare a combined individual and family Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) intervention to treatment as usual. Participants were assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of the At-risk Mental State (CAARMS) and randomly allocated to either therapy or enhanced treatment as usual (ETAU). All participants were followed up at 6 and 12 months. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment and retention of participants. Secondary outcomes included transition to psychosis and assessment of mood, anxiety and the relationship of the individual and nominated family member. RESULTS: We report data showing entry into the study from initial enquiry to randomization. We report the characteristics of the recruited sample of individuals (n = 70) and family members (n = 70) at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The study recruited to 92% of target demonstrating it is feasible to identify and recruit participants. Our study aimed to add to the current evidence base regarding the utility of family interventions for people at-risk of psychosis.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia: the FOCUS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Clozapine (clozaril, Mylan Products Ltd) is a first-choice treatment for people with schizophrenia who have a poor response to standard antipsychotic medication. However, a significant number of patients who trial clozapine have an inadequate response and experience persistent symptoms, called clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (CRS). There is little evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological or psychological interventions for this population. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) for people with CRS and to identify factors predicting outcome. DESIGN: The Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial was a parallel-group, randomised, outcome-blinded evaluation trial. Randomisation was undertaken using permuted blocks of random size via a web-based platform. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis, using random-effects regression adjusted for site, age, sex and baseline symptoms. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out to determine whether or not CBT was associated with a greater number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and higher costs than treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Secondary care mental health services in five cities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: People with CRS aged ≥ 16 years, with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses and who are experiencing psychotic symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Individual CBT included up to 30 hours of therapy delivered over 9 months. The comparator was TAU, which included care co-ordination from secondary care mental health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months and the primary secondary outcome was PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months post randomisation). The health benefit measure for the economic evaluation was the QALY, estimated from the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L), health status measure. Service use was measured to estimate costs. RESULTS: Participants were allocated to CBT (n = 242) or TAU (n = 245). There was no significant difference between groups on the prespecified primary outcome [PANSS total score at 21 months was 0.89 points lower in the CBT arm than in the TAU arm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.32 to 1.55 points; p = 0.475], although PANSS total score at the end of treatment (9 months) was significantly lower in the CBT arm (-2.40 points, 95% CI -4.79 to -0.02 points; p = 0.049). CBT was associated with a net cost of £5378 (95% CI -£13,010 to £23,766) and a net QALY gain of 0.052 (95% CI 0.003 to 0.103 QALYs) compared with TAU. The cost-effectiveness acceptability analysis indicated a low likelihood that CBT was cost-effective, in the primary and sensitivity analyses (probability < 50%). In the CBT arm, 107 participants reported at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 104 participants in the TAU arm reported at least one AE (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.46; p = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioural therapy for CRS was not superior to TAU on the primary outcome of total PANSS symptoms at 21 months, but was superior on total PANSS symptoms at 9 months (end of treatment). CBT was not found to be cost-effective in comparison with TAU. There was no suggestion that the addition of CBT to TAU caused adverse effects. Future work could investigate whether or not specific therapeutic techniques of CBT have value for some CRS individuals, how to identify those who may benefit and how to ensure that effects on symptoms can be sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cognitive behavioural therapy in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (FOCUS): an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although clozapine is the treatment of choice for treatment-refractory schizophrenia, 30-40% of patients have an insufficient response, and others are unable to tolerate it. Evidence for any augmentation strategies is scarce. We aimed to determine whether cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, parallel group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in community-based and inpatient mental health services in five sites in the UK. Patients with schizophrenia who were unable to tolerate clozapine, or whose symptoms did not respond to the drug, were randomly assigned 1:1 by use of randomised-permuted blocks of size four or six, stratified by centre, to either CBT plus treatment as usual or treatment as usual alone. Research assistants were masked to allocation to protect against rater bias and allegiance bias. The primary outcome was the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score at 21 months, which provides a continuous measure of symptoms of schizophrenia; PANSS total was also assessed at the end of treatment (9 months). The primary analysis was by randomised treatment based on intention to treat, for all patients for whom data were available. This study was prospectively registered, number ISRCTN99672552. The trial is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: From Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2015, we randomly assigned 487 participants to either CBT and treatment as usual (n=242) or treatment as usual alone (n=245). Analysis included 209 in the CBT group and 216 in the treatment as usual group. No difference occurred in the primary outcome (PANSS total at 21 months, mean difference -0·89, 95% CI -3·32 to 1·55; p=0·48), although the CBT group improved at the end of treatment (PANSS total at 9 months, mean difference -2·40, -4·79 to -0·02; p=0·049). During the trial, 107 (44%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and 104 (42%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had at least one adverse event (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·81 to 1·46; p=0·58). Only two (1%) of 242 participants in the CBT arm and one (<1%) of 245 in the treatment as usual arm had a trial-related serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: At 21-month follow-up, CBT did not have a lasting effect on total symptoms of schizophrenia compared with treatment as usual; however, CBT produced statistically, though not clinically, significant improvements on total symptoms by the end of treatment. There was no indication that the addition of CBT to treatment as usual caused adverse effects. The results of this trial do not support a recommendation to routinely offer CBT to all people who meet criteria for clozapine-resistant schizophrenia; however, a pragmatic individual trial might be indicated for some. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment programme.

Prevention and treatment of long-term social disability amongst young people with emerging severe mental illness with social recovery therapy (The PRODIGY Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young people who have social disability associated with severe and complex mental health problems are an important group in need of early intervention. Their problems often date back to childhood and become chronic at an early age. Without intervention, the long-term prognosis is often poor and the economic costs very large. There is a major gap in the provision of evidence-based interventions for this group, and therefore new approaches to detection and intervention are needed. This trial provides a definitive evaluation of a new approach to early intervention with young people with social disability and severe and complex mental health problems using social recovery therapy (SRT) over a period of 9 months to improve mental health and social recovery outcomes. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, single blind, superiority randomised controlled trial. It is conducted in three sites in the UK: Sussex, Manchester and East Anglia. Participants are aged 16 to 25 and have both persistent and severe social disability (defined as engaged in less than 30 hours per week of structured activity) and severe and complex mental health problems. The target sample size is 270 participants, providing 135 participants in each trial arm. Participants are randomised 1:1 using a web-based randomisation system and allocated to either SRT plus optimised treatment as usual (enhanced standard care) or enhanced standard care alone. The primary outcome is time use, namely hours spent in structured activity per week at 15 months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes assess typical mental health problems of the group, including subthreshold psychotic symptoms, negative symptoms, depression and anxiety. Time use, secondary outcomes and health economic measures are assessed at 9, 15 and 24 months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: This definitive trial will be the first to evaluate a novel psychological treatment for social disability and mental health problems in young people presenting with social disability and severe and complex non-psychotic mental health problems. The results will have important implications for policy and practice in the detection and early intervention for this group in mental health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47998710 (registered 29/11/2012).

Design and protocol for the Focusing on Clozapine Unresponsive Symptoms (FOCUS) trial: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For around a third of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, the condition proves to respond poorly to treatment with many typical and atypical antipsychotics. This is commonly referred to as treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Clozapine is the only antipsychotic with convincing efficacy for people whose symptoms are considered treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication. However, 30-40 % of such conditions will have an insufficient response to the drug. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been shown to be an effective treatment for schizophrenia when delivered in combination with antipsychotic medication, with several meta-analyses showing robust support for this approach. However, the evidence for the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with a schizophrenia diagnosis whose symptoms are treatment-resistant to antipsychotic medication is limited. There is a clinical and economic need to evaluate treatments to improve outcomes for people with such conditions. METHODS/DESIGN: A parallel group, prospective randomised, open, blinded evaluation of outcomes design will be used to compare a standardised cognitive behavioural therapy intervention added to treatment as usual versus treatment as usual alone (the comparator group) for individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia for whom an adequate trial of clozapine has either not been possible due to tolerability problems or was not associated with a sufficient therapeutic response. The trial will be conducted across five sites in the United Kingdom. DISCUSSION: The recruitment target of 485 was achieved, with a final recruitment total of 487. This trial is the largest definitive, pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for people with schizophrenia whose symptoms have failed to show an adequate response to clozapine treatment. Using a prognostic risk model, baseline information will be used to explore whether there are identifiable subgroups for which the treatment effect is greatest. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99672552 . Registered 29(th) November 2012.

Semi-structured Interview Measure of Stigma (SIMS) in psychosis: Assessment of psychometric properties.

Stigma is a significant difficulty for people who experience psychosis. To date, there have been no outcome measures developed to examine stigma exclusively in people with psychosis. The aim of this study was develop and validate a semi-structured interview measure of stigma (SIMS) in psychosis. The SIMS is an eleven item measure of stigma developed in consultation with service users who have experienced psychosis. 79 participants with experience of psychosis were recruited for the purposes of this study. They were administered the SIMS alongside a battery of other relevant outcome measures to examine reliability and validity. A one-factor solution was identified for the SIMS which encompassed all ten rateable items. The measure met all reliability and validity criteria and illustrated good internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, test retest reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, sensitivity to change and had no floor or ceiling effects. The SIMS is a reliable and valid measure of stigma in psychosis. It may be more engaging and acceptable than other stigma measures due to its semi-structured interview format.