Mindfulness for voices: An experimental analogue study of the effect of manipulating response style to simulated voices in a non-clinical population.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the effects of directly manipulating response style to simulated voice hearing on emotional and cognitive outcomes in a non-clinical population. DESIGN: A between-subjects design with one independent variable, response style (with two levels: mindful acceptance vs attentional avoidance). The dependent variables were subjective distress and anxiety (primary outcomes) and performance on a sustained attention task (secondary outcomes). METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two response styles (mindful acceptance vs. attentional avoidance). They completed a computerised attention task (continuous performance task) whilst listening to a simulation of voice hearing. Participants rated their experience of anxiety and distress before and after completing the sustained attention task which was used to measure their accuracy and response times. RESULTS: One hundred and one participants took part (mindful acceptance (n = 54); attentional avoidance (n = 47)). There were no statistically significant group differences on post-test distress and anxiety scores, correct response rate or response times on the computerised attention task. Participants reported a range of different response styles along the spectrum of avoidance to acceptance, but this had no association with their assigned experimental condition. Adherence to task instructions was therefore low. CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to conclude from this study whether experimentally inducing people to respond to voices under cognitively demanding conditions in an avoidant or accepting way has an impact on their emotional or cognitive outcomes. Further research should focus on the development of more robust and reliable procedures for inducing differences in response style under experimental conditions.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between emotional stress reactivity and psychosis.

AIM: Emotional stress reactivity may be a mediating factor in the association between trauma and psychosis. This review aimed to (i) identify, summarise and critically evaluate the link between emotional stress reactivity and psychotic experiences (ii) examine evidence for a 'dose-response' relationship between stress reactivity and psychosis in the wider psychosis phenotype (i.e., sub-clinical symptoms). METHODS: Electronic database searches (PsychINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were conducted for studies which investigated the link between stress reactivity and psychosis, psychotic symptoms, or a vulnerability to developing psychosis (wider phenotype). Cross-sectional, experimental and experience sampling method study designs were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Fourty five eligible articles were identified (N participants = 8830). Narrative synthesis showed that increased emotional stress reactivity was associated with psychosis and subclinical psychotic experiences across all study designs, however, findings were inconsistent across studies. The preliminary meta-analysis (k = 4, n = 383) showed increases in emotional stress reactivity was associated with higher negative affect in response to event-related stress, in those with psychosis compared to controls (mean difference in beta coefficients = 0.05, 95% CI 0.02-0.08, p = .004). However, this difference was small with a considerable degree of heterogeneity (p = .001, I2  = 81%) so results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the evidence suggests that there is a link between emotional stress reactivity and psychosis in those with psychosis, those at high risk of developing psychosis and in relation to subclinical psychotic-like experiences in the general population.

Trainee life under COVID-19: A systemic case report.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had implications for all of us. For those of us studying on clinical psychology doctorates, and similar psychotherapeutic training courses, this pandemic has led to some particular challenges. This article explores the experiences of a group of clinical psychology trainees, who are also completing intermediate systemic qualification, during the COVID-19 pandemic using a systemic case study approach. We consider the challenges we faced in relation to systemic theory and the intervention we would have used if we were clients in a family therapy clinic. This enabled us to reflect on the importance of self-reflexivity and self-care during these challenging times. Practitioner points: Using systemic thinking and ideas can help organisations make sense of how the system has had to adapt to working during a pandemic and can bring to light some of the challenges.During the pandemic and at other times of crisis, opportunities for students and staff to reflect together are likely to be beneficial.When working independently, as necessitated by the pandemic, finding ways to remain connected to our colleagues will be especially important.Providing opportunities for individuals to give feedback regarding their experiences and to influence organisational change will help individuals gain a sense of agency during a time when they are likely otherwise to feel disempowered.