Cited by 49Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychiatric care and mental health servicesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A systematic scoping review of psychological therapies for psychosis within acute psychiatric in-patient settings

Open access
Jacobsen, Pamela, Hodkinson, Kathleen, Peters, Emmanuelle, Chadwick, Paul·2018·The British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: People with psychotic disorders account for most acute admissions to psychiatric wards. Psychological therapies are a treatment adjunct to standard medication and nursing care, but the evidence base for such therapies within in-patient settings is unclear. Aims: To conduct a systematic scoping review of the current evidence base for psychological therapies for psychosis delivered within acute in-patient settings (PROSPERO: CRD42015025623). Method: All study designs, and therapy models, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, ProQuest, conference abstracts and trial registries. Results: We found 65 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the review, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The majority of studies evaluated cognitive–behavioural interventions. Quality was variable across all study types. The RCTs were mostly small ( n <25 in the treatment arm), and many had methodological limitations including poorly described randomisation methods, inadequate allocation concealment and non-masked outcome assessments. We found studies used a wide range of different outcome measures, and relatively few studies reported affective symptoms or recovery-based outcomes. Many studies described adaptations to treatment delivery within in-patient settings, including increased frequency of sessions, briefer interventions and use of single-session formats. Conclusions: Based on these findings, there is a clear need to improve methodological rigour within in-patient research. Interpretation of the current evidence base is challenging given the wide range of different therapies, outcome measures and models of delivery described in the literature. Declaration of interest: None.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.2018.106

Cites

75 of 75 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?

  • Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses found third-wave therapies superior to guideline-recommended second-wave CBTp for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychosis.

    “However, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating treatment effects for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychosis revealed an outcome superiority of third-wave therapies (5–7) over guideline-recommended second-wave cognitive behavioral therapy for psychosis (CBTp) (3, 4).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion (‘Adapting therapy protocols for in-patient settings’; page unavailable) says this was a scoping review, not a synthesis of efficacy data, and that it cannot draw firm conclusions about which interventions are most efficacious. The Results (‘Current state of evidence base’; page unavailable) note an increase in third-wave therapy studies, but do not report their superiority over CBTp. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most studies of ACT and Metacognitive Therapy for psychosis were conceptualized for individual therapy and/or outpatients, and most available concepts remain rather unsuitable and demanding for group inpatient settings.

    “However, most studies were either conceptualized for individual therapy and/or outpatients (5–7) with most available concepts still rather unsuitable and demanding for group inpatient settings.”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Discussion (Therapy delivery; page unavailable) describes practical and methodological challenges for inpatient groups, and the Discussion (Adapting therapy protocols for in-patient settings; page unavailable) says most reviewed therapies were adapted for inpatient delivery. But the Results (Review Question 4; page unavailable) report group therapy more often than individual therapy (27 versus 19 studies). The review does not establish that most ACT or metacognitive-therapy studies were designed for individual or outpatient care, or that most concepts are unsuitable for inpatient groups. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • MEBASp is a low-threshold transdiagnostic and modularized group therapy that focuses on symptom and distress reduction and responds to a central priority of health care services to develop, test and offer effective and needs-oriented care for acute inpatients with psychosis.

    “MEBASp is a low-threshold transdiagnostic and modularized group therapy that focuses on symptom and distress reduction and responds to a central priority of health care services to develop, test and offer effective and needs-oriented care for acute inpatients with psychosis (5–7).”

    From Developing a mechanism-based therapy for acute psychiatric inpatients with psychotic symptoms: an Intervention Mapping approach (2023) · cites this paper as [7]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies for psychosis with the acute inpatient population so far appears to be limited.

    “Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies for psychosis with the acute inpatient population so far appears to be limited.”
  • Both recent systematic reviews concluded that psychological interventions show promise in this setting but there needs to be a standardised approach to the delivery and evaluation of interventions.

    “Both concluded that psychological interventions show promise in this setting but there needs to be a standardised approach to the delivery and evaluation of interventions.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [28]Beck AT Steer RA Brown GK Beck Depression Inventory 2nd edition The Psychological Corporation 1996
  2. [41]Carpinello SE Knight EL Markowitz FE Pease EA The Development of the Mental Health Confidence Scale: A Measure of Self-Efficacy in Individuals Diagnosed with Mental Disorders Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal Winter 2000 23 3 236 43

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacobsen, P., Hodkinson, K., Peters, E., & Chadwick, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Webster Vienna Private University (AT)
Corresponding author
Jacobsen, Pamela
Venue
The British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2018-06-26
Volume
213
Issue
2
Pages
490-497
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2810565381
Cited by
49
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (acceptedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2014-07-003)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
psychosis, psychotherapy, cognitive-behavioural intervention, adjunct treatment, methodological quality, outcome measures, single-session intervention
MeSH terms
Hospitalization, Humans, Psychotic Disorders, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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