Background There is a large clinical need for improved treatments for patients with persecutory delusions. We aimed to test whether a new theoretically driven cognitive therapy (the Feeling Safe Programme) would lead to large reductions in persecutory delusions, above non-specific effects of therapy. We also aimed to test treatment effect mechanisms. MethodsWe did a parallel, single-blind, randomised controlled trial to test the Feeling Safe Programme against befriending with the same therapists for patients with persistent persecutory delusions in the context of non-affective psychosis diagnoses. Usual care continued throughout the duration of the trial. The trial took place in community mental health services in three UK National Health Service trusts. Participants were included if they were 16 years or older, had persecutory delusions (as defined by Freeman and Garety) for at least 3 months and held with at least 60% conviction, and had a primary diagnosis of non-affective psychosis from the referring clinical team. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Feeling Safe Programme or the befriending programme, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by therapist. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. If an allocation was unmasked then the unmasked assessor was replaced with a new masked assessor. Outcomes were assessed at 0 months, 6 months (primary endpoint), and 12 months. The primary outcome was persecutory delusion conviction, assessed within the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS; rated 0-100%). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Each intervention was provided individually over 6 months. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN18705064. FindingsFrom Feb 8, 2016, to July 26, 2019, 130 patients with persecutory delusions (78 [60%] men; 52 [40%] women, mean age 42 years [SD 12•1, range 17-71]; 86% White, 9% Black, 2% Indian; 2•3% Pakistani; 2% other) were recruited. 64 patients were randomly allocated to the Feeling Safe Programme and 66 patients to befriending. Compared with befriending, the Feeling Safe Programme led to significant end of treatment reductions in delusional conviction (-10•69 [95% CI -19•75 to -1•63], p=0•021, Cohen's d=-0•86) and delusion severity (PSYRATS, -2•94 [-4•58 to -1•31], p<0•0001, Cohen's d=-1•20). More adverse events occurred in the befriending group (68 unrelated adverse events reported in 20 [30%] participants) compared with the Feeling Safe group (53 unrelated adverse events reported in 16 [25%] participants).Interpretation The Feeling Safe Programme led to a significant reduction in persistent persecutory delusions compared with befriending. To our knowledge, these are the largest treatment effects seen for patients with persistent delusions. The principal limitation of our trial was the relatively small sample size when comparing two active treatments, meaning less precision in effect size estimates and lower power to detect moderate treatment differences in secondary o...

The COVID‐19 pandemic and its management are placing significant new strains on people’s well‐being, particularly those with pre‐existing mental health conditions. Physical activity has been shown to improve mental as well as physical health. Increasing activity levels should be prioritized as a treatment target, especially when the barriers to exercise are greater than ever. Promoting physical activity has not traditionally been the remit of psychologists. Yet psychological theory and therapeutic techniques can be readily applied to address physical inactivity. We present theoretical perspectives and therapy techniques relating to (1) beliefs about physical activity, (2) motivation to be physically active, and (3) the sense of reward achieved through being physically active. We outline strategies to initiate and maintain physical activity during the COVID‐19 pandemic, thereby benefitting mental and physical health. COVID‐19 is demanding rapid and substantial change across the whole health care system. Psychological therapists can respond creatively by addressing physical activity, a treatable clinical target which delivers both mental and physical health benefits. Practitioner points Physical activity is essential for our mental and physical health. Yet COVID‐19 presents novel barriers to physical activity. Psychological theory and techniques to address beliefs, motivation, and reward can be applied to increase physical activity during COVID‐19. Physical activity is an important clinical target to sustain and improve mental health, especially in the current pandemic.

No abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to unprecedented disruption to the normal way of life for people around the globe. Social distancing, self-isolation or shielding have been strongly advised or mandated in most countries. We suggest evidence-based ways that people can maintain or even strengthen their mental health during this crisis.

The global COVID-19 outbreak and its management are disrupting ways of life and increasing the risk of poor mental and physical health for many. The restrictions on movement have made some forms of physical activity harder to achieve and increased the chances of more sedentary behaviour. Independent of exercise taken, sedentary behaviour can have a negative impact upon mental health, especially by lowering mood. We suggest evidence-based ways of reducing sedentary behaviour with commentary on how they may be adapted for life at home. These include: ways to use external cues, moving more frequently, maximising movement whilst waiting, reallocating time, workstation alternatives, restructuring the physical environment and recruiting help from others. At a time in which our mental and physical health needs are more critical than ever, the relationship between sedentary behaviour and low mood is of particular importance. The current situation represents a good opportunity for us all to change habits to implement a less sedentary lifestyle, for now and the future. This can start with changes we can make at home during lockdown.

Background Persecutory fears build on feelings of vulnerability that arise from negative views of the self. Body image concerns have the potential to be a powerful driver of feelings of vulnerability. Body image concerns are likely raised in patients with psychosis given the frequent weight gain. We examined for the first-time body esteem – the self-evaluation of appearance – in relation to symptom and psychological correlates in patients with current persecutory delusions. Methods One-hundred and fifteen patients with persecutory delusions in the context of non-affective psychosis completed assessments of body image, self-esteem, body mass index (BMI), psychiatric symptoms and well-being. Body esteem was also assessed in 200 individuals from the general population. Results Levels of body esteem were much lower in patients with psychosis than non-clinical controls (d = 1.2, p < 0.001). In patients, body esteem was lower in women than men, and in the overweight or obese BMI categories than the normal weight range. Body image concerns were associated with higher levels of depression (r = −0.55, p < 0.001), negative self-beliefs (r = −0.52, p < 0.001), paranoia (r = −0.25, p = 0.006) and hallucinations (r = −0.21, p = 0.025). Body image concerns were associated with lower levels of psychological wellbeing (r = 0.41, p < 0.001), positive self-beliefs (r = 0.40, p < 0.001), quality of life (r = 0.23, p = 0.015) and overall health (r = 0.31, p = 0.001). Conclusions Patients with current persecutory delusions have low body esteem. Body image concerns are associated with poorer physical and mental health, including more severe psychotic experiences. Improving body image for patients with psychosis is a plausible target of intervention, with the potential to result in a wide range of benefits.

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.

Background Automated virtual reality (VR) therapy could allow a greater number of patients to receive evidence-based psychological therapy. The aim of the gameChange VR therapy is to help patients overcome anxious avoidance of everyday social situations. gameChange has been evaluated with outpatients, but it may also help inpatients prepare for discharge from psychiatric hospital. Objective The aim of this study is to explore the views of patients and staff on the provision of VR therapy on psychiatric wards. Methods Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted with patients (n=19) and National Health Service staff (n=22) in acute psychiatric wards. Questions were derived from the nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework. Expectations of VR therapy were discussed, and participants were then given the opportunity to try out the gameChange VR therapy before they were asked questions that focused on opinions about the therapy and feasibility of adoption. Results There was great enthusiasm for the use of gameChange VR therapy on psychiatric wards. It was considered that gameChange could help build confidence, reduce anxiety, and “bridge that gap” between the differences of being in hospital and being discharged to the community. However, it was reflected that the VR therapy may not suit everyone, especially if they are acutely unwell. VR on hospital wards for entertainment and relaxation was also viewed positively. Participants were particularly impressed by the immersive quality of gameChange and the virtual coach. It was considered that a range of staff groups could support VR therapy delivery. The staff thought that implementation would be facilitated by having a lead staff member, having ongoing training accessible, and involving the multidisciplinary team in decision-making for VR therapy use. The most significant barrier to implementation identified by patients and staff was a practical one: access to sufficient, private space to provide the therapy. Conclusions Patients and staff were keen for VR to be used on psychiatric wards. In general, patients and staff viewed automated VR therapy as possible to implement within current care provision, with few significant barriers other than constraints of space. Patients and staff thought of many further uses of VR on psychiatric wards. The value of VR therapy on psychiatric wards now requires systematic evaluation. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/20300