Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Subjects at Ultrahigh Risk for Developing Psychosis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments for subjects at ultrahigh risk (UHR) for developing psychosis remains inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: A new cognitive behavioral intervention specifically targeted at cognitive biases (ie, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy [CBT] for UHR patients plus treatment as usual [TAU] called CBTuhr) is compared with TAU in a group of young help-seeking UHR subjects. METHODS: A total of 201 patients were recruited at 4 sites and randomized. In most cases, CBTuhr was an add-on therapy because most people were seeking help for a comorbid disorder. The CBT was provided for 6 months, and the follow-up period was 18 months. RESULTS: In the CBTuhr condition, 10 patients transitioned to psychosis compared with 22 in the TAU condition (χ(2) (1) = 5.575, P = .03). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7-89.9). At 18-month follow-up the CBTuhr group was significantly more often remitted from an at-risk mental state, with a NNT of 7 (95% CI: 3.7-71.2). Intention-to-treat analysis, including 5 violations against exclusion criteria, showed a statistical tendency (χ(2) (1) = 3.338, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TAU, this new CBT (focusing on normalization and awareness of cognitive biases) showed a favorable effect on the transition to psychosis and reduction of subclinical psychotic symptoms in subjects at UHR to develop psychosis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Only two included studies had an overall low risk of bias; five had unclear risk and nine had high risk.
“Only two studies had an overall low risk of bias 33,79 ; five had unclear risk [72][73][74][75][76] , and nine had high risk 30,31,36,37,39,41,77,78,81 .”
From Lack of evidence to favor specific preventive interventions in psychosis: a network meta‐analysis (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 209
- Authors
- van der Gaag, M., Nieman, D. H., Rietdijk, J., Dragt, S., Ising, H. K., Klaassen, R. M. C., Koeter, M., Cuijpers, P., Wunderink, L., & Linszen, D. H.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
- Parnassia Groep (NL)
- GGZ Rivierduinen (NL)
- GGZ Friesland (NL)
- Venue
- Schizophrenia Bulletin
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-09-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1180-1188
- ISSN
- 0586-7614 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-1701
- PMC
- PMC3494039
- OpenAlex
- W2163439420
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17
- FWCI
- 13.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- europepmc.org
- Locations
- Schizophrenia Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- ZonMw (120510001)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Keywords
- cognitive behavioral therapy
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Psychotic Disorders, Risk, Schizophrenia, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Prodromal Symptoms
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