Readiness for treatment predicts depression outcomes in a partial hospital program.

Evidence-based interventions vary in effectiveness for individuals with depression, which has a large public health burden. Readiness for change or treatment can be an important individual difference predictor of depression outcomes. To inform public service initiatives targeting readiness for treatment, characterizing readiness across settings and levels of care is key. However, limited data exist on the role of readiness for treatment in acute psychiatric settings and in particular, partial hospital programs which are key points in the continuity of inpatient and outpatient care. The present study assessed readiness for treatment in terms of importance, confidence, and motivation to engage in a partial hospital program and tested whether higher levels of readiness were associated with better treatment outcomes among clients with depression. Participants (N = 192) with major depressive disorder rated their readiness for treatment (Readiness Rulers), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), and global improvement (Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement Self-Report) while enrolled in a partial hospital program. Generalized linear regression models assessed the effect of baseline readiness on outcomes at discharge, adjusted for baseline level of the outcome, age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Greater baseline readiness predicted reduced depression and better global improvement at discharge. Higher confidence and motivation to engage in treatment, but not importance, were associated with better depression outcomes. Identifying and addressing readiness for treatment by leveraging public health systems and services (e.g., help lines, family interventions) prior to or upon starting a partial hospital program may be useful to maximize gains in treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Does symptom type moderate the relationship between insight and outcome in cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis? A preliminary investigation.

Insight has emerged as a potential predictor variable in cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp). However, previous research has produced mixed results. The present study aimed to clarify whether symptom type is a moderating variable. A group of psychotic patients (n = 44) were assessed through pre- and post-treatment in a CBTp specialty track in a partial hospital-based program in the USA. The Insight Scale was used to measure insight, and psychotic symptomatology was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview and the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale. Patients showed a significant decrease in psychotic symptom scores over the course of treatment [t(43) = 3.59, p < .001, Cohen's d = .64]. Furthermore, illness awareness was specifically associated with a decrease in psychotic symptoms for patients who endorsed visual hallucinations (r = - .68, p < .01), auditory hallucinations (r = - .49, p = .01), and/or ideas of reference (r = - .66, p < .01). Insight did not confer additional benefit for patients with paranoid delusions, mind reading, or thought insertion symptoms. These results are discussed in relation to treatment implications within the current US health care delivery system.

Cognitive behavioral therapy and schizophrenia: a survey of clinical practices and views on efficacy in the United States and United kingdom.

Research has shown that cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective in the treatment of schizophrenia (Wykes et al. in Schizophr Bull 34(3):523-537, 2008). The majority of this research has been conducted in the United Kingdom (Beck and Rector in Am J Psychother 54:291-300, 2000) where the National Health Service recommends that CBT be delivered to all people with schizophrenia (NICE in Schizophrenia: core interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia in primary and secondary care (update). http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/CG82/NiceGuidance/pdf/English , 2009). In contrast, the corresponding American Psychiatric Association guidelines describe CBT as an adjunctive technique that "may benefit" patients (Lehman et al. in Am J Psychiatry 161:1-56, 2004, p. 35). Anecdotal evidence also suggests a difference between UK and US clinicians' use of and views on CBT with schizophrenia (Tarrier in Clinical handbook of psychological disorders: a step-by-step treatment manual. Guilford, New York, 2008). In the present study 214 clinicians in the UK and US completed an internet survey examining this apparent discrepancy. UK and US participants were equally aware that empirical research supports the efficacy of CBT with schizophrenia. However, UK participants were more likely to practice CBT, rated CBT effectiveness more highly, and were more optimistic about the chances of recovery. These findings suggest fundamental differences in the attitudes and practices of UK and US clinicians.