Cited by 226Schizophrenia research and treatmentMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumBipolar Disorder and Treatment

A randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioral therapy for individuals at clinical high risk of psychosis

Addington, Jean, Epstein, Irvin, Liu, Lu, French, Paul, Boydell, Katherine M., Zipursky, Robert B.·2011·Schizophrenia Research

Abstract

Background There has been increasing interest in early detection during the prodromal phase of a psychotic disorder. To date a few treatment studies have been published with some promising results for both pharmacological treatments, using second generation antipsychotics, and psychological interventions, mainly cognitive behavioral therapy. The purpose of this study was to determine first if cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was more effective in reducing the rates of conversion compared to a supportive therapy and secondly whether those who received CBT had improved symptoms compared to those who received supportive therapy.Method Fifty-one individuals at clinical high risk of developing psychosis were randomized to CBT or a supportive therapy for up to 6 months. The sample was assessed at 6, 12 and 18 months post baseline on attenuated positive symptoms, negative symptoms, depression, anxiety and social functioning.Results Conversions to psychosis only occurred in the group who received supportive therapy although the difference was not significant. Both groups improved in attenuated positive symptoms, depression and anxiety and neither improved in social functioning and negative symptoms. There were no differences between the two treatment groups. However, the improvement in attenuated positive symptoms was more rapid for the CBT group.Conclusions There are limitations of this trial and potential explanations for the lack of differences. However, both the results of this study and the possible explanations have significant implications for early detection and intervention in the pre-psychotic phase and for designing future treatments.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2010.10.015

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Addington, J., Epstein, I., Liu, L., French, P., Boydell, K. M., & Zipursky, R. B.
Affiliations
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Addington, Jean
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
125
Issue
1
Pages
54-61
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053821113
Cited by
226
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 25
FWCI
12.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, clinical high risk for psychosis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Double-Blind Method, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotic Disorders, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, 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