In-person versus remote CBT groups during COVID-19 for adolescents with mood disorders or psychosis-risk syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, psychosocial therapies have been provided in varying formats, including remote, in-person, and hybrid services. It is unclear whether varying formats are similarly efficacious in improving psychiatric symptoms and functioning, lead to similar rates of treatment retention, and are equally acceptable to patients. This study compared youth with mood disorders and/or psychosis-risk syndromes who participated in a group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in-person prior to COVID-19, to youth in the same treatment given remotely during the pandemic. METHODS: Adolescents ages 13-17 years participated in 9 sessions of group-based CBT given in-person (2018-2019) or remotely (2020-2021). Youth participants provided self-report ratings of psychiatric symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and emotional regulation at the study baseline and post-treatment and ratings of treatment satisfaction and burden at post-treatment. RESULTS: There were no differences between in-person and remote treatment improvements in psychiatric symptoms, psychosocial functioning or emotional regulation. However, youth in remote treatment had increased retention compared to youth who received treatment in person. Youth in the remote treatment reported similar levels of satisfaction but reported lower burden compared to those who received in-person treatment. LIMITATIONS: Participants were not randomized into remote or in-person treatment. Participants prior to COVID did not have the same frame of reference for alternative treatment delivery options as those during or post-COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Remote group treatment can provide similar levels of psychiatric benefit but less burden than in-person treatment for youth with mood disorders and/or psychosis-risk syndromes.

Family-focused therapy for individuals at high clinical risk for psychosis: A confirmatory efficacy trial.

AIMS: Young people with attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS), brief intermittent psychosis, and/or genetic risk and functional deterioration are at high risk for developing psychotic disorders. In a prior trial, family-focused therapy for clinical high risk youth (FFT-CHR) was more effective than brief psychoeducation in reducing APS severity over 6 months. This 7-site trial will compare the efficacy of FFT-CHR to a psychoeducational and supportive intervention (enhanced care) on APS and social functioning in CHR individuals over 18 months. METHODS: Participants (N = 220, ages 13-25 years) with a CHR syndrome will be randomly assigned to FFT-CHR (18 1-h sessions of family psychoeducation and communication/problem-solving skills training) or enhanced care (3 1-h family psychoeducational sessions followed by 5 individual support sessions), both given over 6 months. Participants will rate their weekly progress during treatment using a mobile-enhanced online platform. Family communication will be assessed in a laboratory interactional task at baseline and post-treatment. Independent evaluators will assess APS (primary outcome) and psychosocial functioning (secondary outcome) every 6 months over 18 months. RESULTS: We hypothesize that, compared to enhanced care, FFT-CHR will be associated with greater improvements in APS and psychosocial functioning over 18 months. Secondarily, improvements in family communication over 6 months will mediate the relationship between treatment condition and primary and secondary outcomes over 18 months. The effects of FFT-CHR are predicted to be greater in individuals with higher baseline risk for psychosis conversion. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the trial will inform treatment guidelines for individuals at high risk for psychosis.

Family-focused treatment for adolescents and young adults at high risk for psychosis: results of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Longitudinal studies have begun to clarify the phenotypic characteristics of adolescents and young adults at clinical high risk for psychosis. This 8-site randomized trial examined whether a 6-month program of family psychoeducation was effective in reducing the severity of attenuated positive and negative psychotic symptoms and enhancing functioning among individuals at high risk. METHOD: Adolescents and young adults (mean age 17.4 ± 4.1 years) with attenuated positive psychotic symptoms, brief and intermittent psychosis, or genetic risk with functional deterioration were randomly assigned to 18 sessions of family-focused therapy for individuals at clinical high risk (FFT-CHR) in 6 months or 3 sessions of family psychoeducation (enhanced care [EC]). FFT-CHR included psychoeducation about early signs of psychosis, stress management, communication training, and problem-solving skills training, whereas EC focused on symptom prevention. Independent evaluators assessed participants at baseline and 6 months on positive and negative symptoms and social-role functioning. RESULTS: Of 129 participants, 102 (79.1%) were followed up at 6 months. Participants in FFT-CHR showed greater improvements in attenuated positive symptoms over 6 months than participants in EC (F1,97 = 5.49, p = .02). Negative symptoms improved independently of psychosocial treatments. Changes in psychosocial functioning depended on age: participants more than 19 years of age showed more role improvement in FFT-CHR, whereas participants between 16 and 19 years of age showed more role improvement in EC. The results were independent of concurrent pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSION: Interventions that focus on improving family relationships may have prophylactic efficacy in individuals at high risk for psychosis. Future studies should examine the specificity of effects of family intervention compared to individual therapy of the same duration and frequency. Clinical trial registration information-Prevention Trial of Family Focused Treatment in Youth at Risk for Psychosis; http://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT01907282.

A randomized trial of family focused therapy with populations at clinical high risk for psychosis: effects on interactional behavior.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether family focused therapy (FFT-CHR), an 18-session intervention that consisted of psychoeducation and training in communication and problem solving, brought about greater improvements in family communication than enhanced care (EC), a 3-session psychoeducational intervention, among individuals at clinical high risk for developing psychosis. METHOD: This study was conducted within a randomized controlled trial across 8 sites. We examined 10-min problem-solving discussions at baseline and 6-month reassessment among 66 adolescents and young adults and their parents. Trained coders who were blind to treatment and time of assessment achieved high levels of interrater reliability when evaluating family discussions on categories of calm-constructive and critical-conflictual behavior. RESULTS: Individuals at high risk and their family members who participated in FFT-CHR demonstrated greater improvement from baseline to 6-month reassessment in constructive communication and decreases in conflictual behaviors during family interactions than those in EC. Participants in FFT-CHR showed greater increases from baseline to 6 months in active listening and calm communication and greater decreases in irritability and anger, complaints and criticism, and off-task comments compared to participants in EC. These changes occurred equally in high-risk participants and their family members. CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month family skills training treatment can bring about significant improvement in family communication among individuals at high risk for psychosis and their parents. Future studies should examine the association between enhancements in family communication and reduced risk for the onset of psychosis among individuals at high risk.

A randomized trial of family focused treatment for adolescents and young adults at risk for psychosis: study rationale, design and methods.

AIM: This article outlines the rationale for a family-focused psychoeducational intervention for individuals at risk for psychosis and explains the design of a randomized multisite trial to test its efficacy. METHODS: Adolescents and young adults that meet criteria for a psychosis risk syndrome at eight participating North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study sites are randomly assigned to a 6-month, 18-session family-focused treatment for prodromal youth or a 3-session psychoeducational enhanced care control intervention and followed over 1 year. RESULTS: The results will determine whether the use of a family intervention is able to significantly improve functional outcomes, decrease the severity of positive symptoms and possibly prevent the onset of full psychosis, compared with enhanced care alone. Levels of familial criticism at baseline are hypothesized to moderate responses to family intervention. Improvements in knowledge about symptoms, family communication and problem solving will be tested as mediators in the pathways between treatment assignment and clinical or psychosocial outcomes in high-risk youth. CONCLUSIONS: The ongoing trial evaluates whether a non-invasive psychosocial approach can significantly enhance functional outcomes and prevent the ultra high risk patients from developing psychosis. The results will provide an important stepping stone in the movement of the field from refining early detection strategies to developing efficacious preventative treatments.

Predicting the longitudinal effects of the family environment on prodromal symptoms and functioning in patients at-risk for psychosis.

The current study examined the relationship between the family environment and symptoms and functioning over time in a group of adolescents and young adults at clinical high risk for psychosis (N=63). The current study compared the ability of interview-based versus self-report ratings of the family environment to predict the severity of prodromal symptoms and functioning over time. The family environmental factors were measured by interviewer ratings of the Camberwell Family Interview (CFI), self-report questionnaires surveying the patient's perceptions of criticism and warmth, and parent reported perceptions of their own level of criticism and warmth. Patients living in a critical family environment, as measured by the CFI at baseline, exhibited significantly worse positive symptoms at a 6-month follow-up, relative to patients living in a low-key family environment. In terms of protective effects, warmth and an optimal level of family involvement interacted such that the two jointly predicted improved functioning at the 6-month follow-up. Overall, both interview-based and self-report ratings of the family environment were predictive of symptoms and functioning at follow-up; however patient's self-report ratings of criticism had stronger predictive power. These results suggest that the family environment should be a specific target of treatment for individuals at risk for psychosis.

Family problem solving interactions and 6-month symptomatic and functional outcomes in youth at ultra-high risk for psychosis and with recent onset psychotic symptoms: a longitudinal study.

This study prospectively examined the relationship between social problem solving behavior exhibited by youths at ultra-high risk for psychosis (UHR) and with recent onset psychotic symptoms and their parents during problem solving discussions, and youths' symptoms and social functioning six months later. Twenty-seven adolescents were administered the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes and the Strauss-Carpenter Social Contact Scale at baseline and follow-up assessment. Primary caregivers participated with youth in a ten minute discussion that was videotaped, transcribed, and coded for how skillful participants were in defining problems, generating solutions, and reaching resolution, as well as how constructive and/or conflictual they were during the interaction. Controlling for social functioning at baseline, adolescents' skillful problem solving and constructive communication, and parents' constructive communication, were associated with youths' enhanced social functioning six months later. Controlling for symptom severity at baseline, we found that there was a positive association between adolescents' conflictual communications at baseline and an increase in positive symptoms six months later. Taken together, findings from this study provide support for further research into the possibility that specific family interventions, such as problem solving and communication skills training, may improve the functional prognosis of at-risk youth, especially in terms of their social functioning.

Parent attitudes and parent adolescent interaction in families of youth at risk for psychosis and with recent-onset psychotic symptoms.

AIM: This study investigated the behavioural correlates of caregiver attitudes among parents of youth at risk for psychosis and with recent-onset psychotic symptoms. METHODS: Forty adolescents identified as ultra-high-risk (UHR) for psychosis using the Structured Interview for Prodromal Syndromes, and their primary caregivers, participated in the Family Interaction Task (FIT), a 10-minute discussion of meaningful shared experiences that allowed families to demonstrate supportive as well as conflict-engaging behaviour. At the same assessment, caregivers were administered the Camberwell Family Interview (CFI). We examined cross-sectional relationships between these measures, as well as their association with youth symptom severity and functioning at 4-month follow-up. RESULTS: As predicted, caregivers who provided more positive remarks regarding their UHR and recent-onset adolescents during the CFI were also more likely to exhibit constructive behaviour during the FIT. Similarly, CFI critical comments were positively associated with caregivers' conflict-engaging behaviour during the FIT. Parents' positive remarks predicted a decrease in negative symptoms, and parent warmth predicted an increase in social functioning at follow-up assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to maintain a constructive attitude and approach towards youth predicted symptomatic and functional improvement, and may be a teachable skill.

Psychoeducational multi-family group treatment with adolescents at high risk for developing psychosis.

AIM: In this study, we investigate the feasibility and acceptability of a 9-month psychoeducational multi-family group (PMFG) intervention for adolescents who are at ultra-high-risk (UHR) for developing psychosis. METHODS: The treatment programme was adapted from those previously shown to be effective in patients with established psychotic illness, but emphasizes content relevant to adolescence and to a pre-onset phase of illness. RESULTS: Participants report that psychoeducational presentations are highly useful, they attend the PMFG group sessions regularly and report feeling comfortable in meetings and benefiting from them, and adolescents demonstrate improvement in symptoms and functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This study was not a randomized controlled trial and multiple interventions were introduced simultaneously; thus, changes in outcome cannot be attributed to the PMFG intervention per se. Nonetheless, these results establish the acceptability of PMFG to adolescents and families, and encourage further research into the potential positive impact of PMFG with this at-risk population.