Virtual Reality Therapy for the Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia (V-NeST): A pilot randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Negative symptoms are typically observed in people with schizophrenia and indicate a loss or reduction of normal function (e.g. reduced motivation and affect display). Despite obstructing people's recovery, intervention development has received limited attention. This study tests the feasibility and acceptability of a novel Virtual Reality Supported Therapy for the Negative Symptoms of Schizophrenia (V-NeST). METHOD: A single (rater) blind randomised study with two conditions; V-NeST plus treatment as-usual (TAU) vs. TAU alone, recruiting people with schizophrenia experiencing debilitating negative symptoms. Assessment was at baseline and 3-month post-randomisation. The pre-specified primary outcome was participants' goal attainment, secondary outcomes were negative symptoms and functioning. The study assessed feasibility and acceptability parameters including recruitment, eligibility, treatment adherence and retention. Acceptability was also evaluated qualitatively using a post-therapy feedback interview. Explorative therapy effect on outcomes was estimated. RESULTS: The study recruited to its pre-specified target of 30 participants (15 randomised to V-Nest). Two participants in each trial arm disengaged and did not complete the study. Therapy engagement for those randomised to V-NeST was appropriate and research procedures were feasible. The experience with therapy and VR was described as positive and useful. Preliminary analysis suggested the therapy may have a large effect on participants goals and a possible effect on negative symptoms. CONCLUSION: V-NeST is a feasible and acceptable intervention. This therapy has the potential to support people with schizophrenia achieving their recovery goals and may reduce negative symptoms. The efficacy results need to be evaluated in an appropriately powered efficacy study.

Indirect payments: when the Mental Capacity Act interacts with the personalisation agenda.

This paper reports findings from a study that aimed to explore how practitioners were bringing together the demands of the personalisation agenda, in particular the offer of direct payments (DPs), with the Mental Capacity Act, and to investigate current practices of offering and administering indirect payments for people who lack capacity to consent to them, including the use of 'suitable person' proxies under the new regulations (DH, 2009). The study adopted a qualitative interview-based design; participants were social work practitioners (67) and recipients of 'indirect' payments (18) in six local authorities in England in 2011-2012. The paper reports on five key decision-making points in the indirect payments process: the decision to take on an indirect payment, the assessment of mental capacity, the identification of a suitable person, the establishment of the care recipient's best interests and the decisions about how to execute the indirect payment. We found that practitioners and suitable people had different experiences of the system, although in both cases, there was overarching support for the benefits of enabling people who lack capacity to consent to a DP to receive their social care funding in the form of an 'indirect' payment via a proxy suitable person.

Applied behaviour analysis and standard treatment in intellectual disability: 2-year outcomes.

Applied behaviour analysis by a specialist team plus standard treatment for adults with intellectual disability displaying challenging behaviour was reported to be clinically and cost-effective after 6 months. In a 2-year follow-up of the same trial cohort, participants receiving the specialist intervention had significantly lower total and subdomain Aberrant Behavior Checklist scores than those receiving usual care alone. After adjustment for baseline covariates there was no significant difference in costs between the trial arms.