Cited by 77Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsMental Health and Psychiatry

Thinking Well: A randomised controlled feasibility study of a new CBT therapy targeting reasoning biases in people with distressing persecutory delusional beliefs

Open access
Waller, Helen, Emsley, Richard, Freeman, Daniel, Bebbington, Paul, Dunn, Graham, Fowler, David, Hardy, Amy, Kuipers, Elizabeth +1 more·2015·Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Delusional beliefs with persecutory content are common in psychosis, but difficult to treat. Interventions targeting hypothesised causal and maintaining factors have been proposed as a way of improving therapy. The current study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of the 'Thinking Well (TW)' intervention: This novel approach combines the recently developed Maudsley Review Training Programme (MRTP), with additional, focussed cognitive-behavioural therapy sessions. METHODS: 31 participants with distressing persecutory delusions and schizophrenia spectrum disorders were randomised to TW or to treatment as usual in a 2:1 ratio. Participants completed outcome assessments at 0 (baseline), 1 (post-MRTP), 6 (post-TW) and 8 (follow-up) weeks. Key outcomes included belief flexibility, paranoia, and delusional conviction and distress. Participants allocated to TW completed the MRTP package and four CBT sessions with a clinical psychologist. RESULTS: Recruitment proved feasible. Participants reported the intervention was relevant and had resulted in positive changes in thinking and mood, which they could use in everyday life. Treatment effects were moderate-large for key outcomes including belief flexibility, paranoia conviction and distress. The additional TW sessions appeared to confer benefits over MRTP alone. LIMITATIONS: Assessments were not carried out blind to treatment condition. Recruitment was opportunistic, from an identified pool of research participants. Finally, a few participants had already completed the MRTP as part of a previous study. CONCLUSIONS: The TW intervention appears to be feasible and acceptable to participants, and the effects of treatment are promising. A fully powered randomised controlled trial of the intervention is warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbtep.2015.02.007

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waller, H., Emsley, R., Freeman, D., Bebbington, P., Dunn, G., Fowler, D., Hardy, A., Kuipers, E., & Garety, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Sussex (GB)
Corresponding author
Waller, Helen
Venue
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
48
Pages
82-89
ISSN
0005-7916 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1986753969
Cited by
77
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (085396)
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10103)
  • King's College London
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
Keywords
persecutory delusions, cognitive behavioral therapy, reasoning biases, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, paranoia, delusional conviction, psychosis treatment, feasibility
MeSH terms
Adult, Delusions, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Paranoid Disorders, Pilot Projects, Psychotic Disorders, Thinking, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review