Cited by 128Schizophrenia research and treatmentHallucinations in medical conditionsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Relating Therapy for distressing auditory hallucinations: A pilot randomized controlled trial

Hayward, Mark, Jones, Anna-Marie, Bogen-Johnston, Leanne, Thomas, Neil, Strauss, Clara·2017·Schizophrenia Research

Abstract

Auditory hallucinations (AH) are a common and distressing experience and patients report distress reduction to be a priority. Relating Therapy adopts a symptom-specific and mechanism focused approach to the reduction of AH distress. We conducted this single-blind, pragmatic, parallel groups, superiority pilot RCT within a single mental health centre in the UK. Patients (18+years) with persistent and distressing AH, irrespective of diagnosis were randomly allocated to receive either Relating Therapy and Treatment-as-usual (RT) or Treatment as-usual alone (TAU). Assessment of outcome was completed pre-randomisation (T0), 16weeks post-randomisation (T1) and 36weeks post-randomisation (T2). The primary outcome was the 5-item Distress scale of the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale - Auditory Hallucinations (PSYRATS-AHRS) at T1. We randomly assigned 29 patients to receive RT (n=14) or TAU (n=15). Twenty-five patients (86%) provided complete datasets. Compared with TAU, RT led to reductions in AH distress in the large effect size range across T1 and T2. Our findings suggest that Relating Therapy might be effective for reducing AH distress. A larger, suitably powered phase 3 study is needed to provide a precise estimate of the effects of Relating Therapy for AH distress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.schres.2016.11.019

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • This recovery was made possible after engagement with approaches that centred empowerment and autonomy including peer support work and work with a psychologist using recovery models and dialogical frameworks, and trauma work.

    “This recovery was made possible after engagement with approaches that centred empowerment and autonomy including peer support work and work with a psychologist using recovery models and dialogical frameworks (i.e., Voice-Hearing approach, Chair Work, Schema Therapy; [86–91]), and trauma work.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hayward, M., Jones, A.-M., Bogen-Johnston, L., Thomas, N., & Strauss, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • Swinburne University of Technology (AU)
Corresponding author
Hayward, Mark
Venue
Schizophrenia Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-05
Volume
183
Pages
137-142
ISSN
0920-9964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2560073268
Cited by
128
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Schizophrenia Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Swinburne figshare (Swinburne University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hallucinations in medical conditions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
auditory hallucinations
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hallucinations, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Retrospective Studies, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome

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