Computerised Interventions for Thinking and Anxiety in Delusions
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Computerised Interventions for Thinking and Anxiety in Delusions (CITADEL) Trial
IRAS ID
124459
Contact name
Philippa A Garety
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry
Research summary
People with a schizophrenia spectrum diagnosis often experience distressing worries or beliefs about other people intending to cause them harm (also known as paranoia). Paranoid beliefs are associated with significant distress and disruption to the person’s life. This results in high use of services and costs to mental health providers.
The National Institute of Clinical Excellence recommends that cognitive behavioural therapy for psychosis (CBTp) is offered to everybody with a schizophrenia spectrum psychosis. The latest meta-analyses report improved outcomes, and reduced inpatient stays following CBTp, making it a cost-effective intervention (NICE, 2009).
Although improved outcomes have been obtained by therapies, CBTp has only small to moderate effects on paranoid beliefs. Further, training therapists to competently deliver CBTp is intensive, expensive and takes up to a year. CBTp is therefore not widely available to service users, resulting in inequalities in access to care.
We are seeking to improve outcomes and accessibility of CBTp for people with distressing, paranoid beliefs. The proposed research programme aims to conduct a feasibility study of two brief therapeutic interventions, aimed at targeting and improving two key processes which are causally implicated in paranoia: a) reasoning styles and b) anxiety processes.
We have preliminary evidence indicating that these pilot interventions, with interactive multi-media content, reduced distressing beliefs and improved coping. Participants also reported they found the interventions acceptable, enjoyable and useful to participants. Based on these results, we have further modified the interventions, and want to determine their feasibility and efficacy in a larger sample with a control group.
REC name
London - Camberwell St Giles Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
13/LO/0690
Date of REC Opinion
30 May 2013
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion