Background Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis.Methods We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14-18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Findings Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16•3 years [SD 1•3]) were recruited fromApril 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-mon...

Objective: Paranoia may be particularly prevalent during adolescence, building on the heightened social vulnerabilities at this age. Excessive mistrust may be corrosive for adolescent social relationships, especially in the context of mental health disorders. We set out to examine the prevalence, symptom associations, and persistence of paranoia in a cohort of young people attending child and adolescent mental health services. Method: A total of 301 patients (11–17 years old) completed measures of paranoia, affect, peer difficulties and behavioural problems. Clinicians also rated each participant’s psychiatric symptoms. Patterns of association were examined using linear regressions and network analyses. In total, 105 patients repeated the measures several months later. Results: Most of the adolescents had affective disorders ( n = 195), self-harm/suicidality ( n = 82), or neurodevelopmental conditions ( n = 125). Few had suspected psychosis ( n = 7). Rates of paranoia were approximately double compared with previous reports from the general population. In this patient sample, 35% had at least elevated paranoia, 15% had at least moderate paranoia, and 6% had high paranoia. Paranoia had moderate associations with clinician-rated peer difficulties, self-harm, and trauma, and small associations with clinician-rated social anxiety, depression, generalised anxiety, and educational problems. Network analyses showed paranoia had the strongest unique relationship with peer difficulties. Paths from peer difficulties to anxiety, self-harm, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and behavioural problems were all via paranoia. Both self-harm and post-traumatic stress disorder were solely associated with paranoia in the network. Paranoia remained persistent for three-quarters and was associated with greater psychological problems over time. Conclusion: Paranoia is relatively common and persistent across a range of clinical presentations in youth. When paranoia occurs alongside emotional problems, important peer interactions may be adversely affected. Wider consideration of paranoia in adolescent patients is needed.

Background: Precise assessment tools for psychotic experiences in young people may help identify symptoms early and facilitate advances in treatment. In this study we provide an exemplar-with a paranoia scale for youth-for improving measurement precision for psychotic experiences using item response theory (IRT). We evaluate the psychometric properties of the new measure, test for measurement invariance, and assess its potential for computerised adaptive testing (CAT). Method: The 18-item Bird Checklist of Adolescent Paranoia (B-CAP) was completed by 1102 adolescents including 301 patients with mental health problems and 801 from the general population. After excluding outliers (n=10), IRT was used to examine item properties, test reliability, and measurement invariance. The properties of an adaptive B-CAP were assessed using a simulation of 10,000 responses. Results: All B-CAP items were highly discriminative (a=1.15-2.76), whereby small shifts in paranoia led to a higher probability of item endorsement. Test reliability was high (a>0.90) across a wide range of paranoia severity (θ=-0.46-3.36), with the greatest precision at elevated levels. All items were invariant for gender, age, and population groups. The simulated adaptive B-CAP performed with high accuracy and required only 5-6 items at higher levels of paranoia severity. Conclusions: The B-CAP is a reliable assessment tool with excellent psychometric properties to assess both non-clinical and clinical levels of paranoia in young people, with potential as an efficient adaptive test. In future, these approaches could be used to develop a multidimensional CAT to assess the full range of psychotic experiences in youth.

Background The period before the formation of a persecutory delusion may provide causal insights. Patient accounts are invaluable in informing this understanding. Aims To inform the understanding of delusion formation, we asked patients about the occurrence of potential causal factors – identified from a cognitive model – before delusion onset. Method A total of 100 patients with persecutory delusions completed a checklist about their subjective experiences in the weeks before belief onset. The checklist included items concerning worry, images, low self-esteem, poor sleep, mood dysregulation, dissociation, manic-type symptoms, aberrant salience, hallucinations, substance use and stressors. Time to reach certainty in the delusion was also assessed. Results Most commonly it took patients several months to reach delusion certainty (n = 30), although other patients took a few weeks (n = 24), years (n = 21), knew instantly (n = 17) or took a few days (n = 6). The most frequent experiences occurring before delusion onset were: low self-confidence (n = 84); excessive worry (n = 80); not feeling like normal self (n = 77); difficulties concentrating (n = 77); going over problems again and again (n = 75); being very negative about the self (n = 75); images of bad things happening (n = 75); and sleep problems (n = 75). The average number of experiences occurring was high (mean 23.5, s.d. = 8.7). The experiences clustered into six main types, with patients reporting an average of 5.4 (s.d. = 1.0) different types. Conclusions Patients report numerous different experiences in the period before full persecutory delusion onset that could be contributory causal factors, consistent with a complex multifactorial view of delusion occurrence. This study, however, relied on retrospective self-report and could not determine causality. Declaration of interest None.