CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 61Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychological Treatments and Assessments

Who stays, who benefits? Predicting dropout and change in cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis

Open access
Lincoln, Tania M., Rief, Winfried, Westermann, Stefan, Ziegler, Michael, Kesting, Marie-Luise, Heibach, Eva, Mehl, Stephanie·2014·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2014.02.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigates the predictors of outcome in a secondary analysis of dropout and completer data from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial comparing CBTp to a wait-list group (Lincoln et al., 2012). Eighty patients with DSM-IV psychotic disorders seeking outpatient treatment were included. Predictors were assessed at baseline. Symptom outcome was assessed at post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up. The predictor×group interactions indicate that a longer duration of disorder predicted less improvement in negative symptoms in the CBTp but not in the wait-list group whereas jumping-to-conclusions was associated with poorer outcome only in the wait-list group. There were no CBTp specific predictors of improvement in positive symptoms. However, in the combined sample (immediate CBTp+the delayed CBTp group) baseline variables predicted significant amounts of positive and negative symptom variance at post-therapy and 1-year follow-up after controlling for pre-treatment symptoms. Lack of insight and low social functioning were the main predictors of drop-out, contributing to a prediction accuracy of 87%. The findings indicate that higher baseline symptom severity, poorer functioning, neurocognitive deficits, reasoning biases and comorbidity pose no barrier to improvement during CBTp. However, in line with previous predictor-research, the findings imply that patients need to receive treatment earlier.

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.psychres.2014.02.012

Cites

59 of 59 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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fydrich, T., & Bürgener, F., 1999. Rating Skala für Soziale Kompetenz. In J. Margraf & K. Rudolf (Eds.), Soziale Kompetenz -Soziale Phobie. Anwendungsfelder, Entwickluingslinien, Erfolgsaussichten. Hohengehren: Schneider.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lincoln, T. M., Rief, W., Westermann, S., Ziegler, M., Kesting, M.-L., Heibach, E., & Mehl, S.
Affiliations
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • Vitos (DE)
Corresponding author
Lincoln, Tania M.
ORCID
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
216
Issue
2
Pages
198-205
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2014.02.012
OpenAlex
W2065530821
Cited by
61
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LI 1298/3-1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
Keywords
treatment discontinuation, predictors of treatment outcome, psychosis, negative symptoms, positive symptoms, jumping to conclusions, lack of insight, social functioning, treatment timing, comorbidities, neurocognitive impairment, reasoning biases, waitlist control
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Compliance, Patient Dropouts, Psychotic Disorders, Social Adjustment, Waiting Lists, Comorbidity, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

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