Open‐label study of cognitive behavioural therapy for individuals with at‐risk mental state: Feasibility in the Japanese clinical setting

Abstract

We confirmed the feasibility of the provision of CBT for ARMS in Japan. Since overprescription of antipsychotics is a matter of great concern in Japan, CBT could be a valuable alternative treatment strategy.

Psychological interventions for people with psychotic experiences: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled and uncontrolled effectiveness and economic studies

“…CBT for PEs (and other therapies where CBT is the key component, e.g. integrated psychological interventions) (Addington et al, 2011; Bechdolf et al, 2005, 2007; Evans et al, 2017; Ising et al, 2015, 2016, 2017; Kommescher et al, 2016; McGorry et al, 2013, 2017; Matsumoto et al, 2018; Morrison et al, 2004, 2012; Nelson et al, 2018b; Stafford et al, 2015; Stain et al, 2016; Van der Gaag et al, 2012) explores the links between thoughts, emotions and behaviour. The therapy is formulation-driven, problem-oriented, time-limited, and tailored to patients’ needs.…”

“…Five reports from four studies provided the proportion of participants that remitted from PEs following psychological intervention (Ising et al, 2016; Matsumoto et al, 2018; Ruhrmann et al, 2007; Shi et al, 2017; Van der Gaag et al, 2012). Meta-analysis was not possible for the primary outcome: only two reports had the same intervention framework and comparator category, and the more recent was a follow-up of the first (Ising et al, 2016; Van der Gaag et al, 2012).…”

“…The difference remained significant at medium-term follow-up (approximately 3.5 years post-therapy), with 76.3% of the CBT + TAU group versus 58.7% of the TAU only group in remission ( p = 0.04) (Ising et al, 2016). A pre–post study of CBT found ARMS remission rates of 46.2% at post-intervention and 84.6% 6 months post-intervention (Matsumoto et al, 2018).…”

“…In addition, reports from three controlled (Addington et al, 2011; Bechdolf et al, 2007; McGorry et al, 2017) and four uncontrolled studies (Bechdolf et al, 2005; Evans et al, 2017; Matsumoto et al, 2018; Stafford et al, 2015) provided results of significance tests for within-group pre–post changes for individuals receiving CBT (several more noted symptom improvement, but did not provide formal significance testing results). The three reports providing data on positive psychotic symptoms (Addington et al, 2011; Matsumoto et al, 2018; Stafford et al, 2015), and one of the three providing data on negative psychotic symptoms (McGorry et al, 2017) found significant improvement.…”

“…In addition, reports from three controlled (Addington et al, 2011; Bechdolf et al, 2007; McGorry et al, 2017) and four uncontrolled studies (Bechdolf et al, 2005; Evans et al, 2017; Matsumoto et al, 2018; Stafford et al, 2015) provided results of significance tests for within-group pre–post changes for individuals receiving CBT (several more noted symptom improvement, but did not provide formal significance testing results). The three reports providing data on positive psychotic symptoms (Addington et al, 2011; Matsumoto et al, 2018; Stafford et al, 2015), and one of the three providing data on negative psychotic symptoms (McGorry et al, 2017) found significant improvement. Significant improvement was also noted in four of the five reports providing data on depression (Bechdolf et al, 2005; Evans et al, 2017; McGorry et al, 2017; Matsumoto et al, 2018) and functioning (Bechdolf et al, 2005, 2007; McGorry et al, 2017; Matsumoto et al, 2018), all four reports providing data on anxiety (Addington et al, 2011; Bechdolf et al, 2005; Evans et al, 2017; Matsumoto et al, 2018), one of the two providing data on distress (Evans et al, 2017), and in the one report that provided data on quality of life (Matsumoto et al, 2018).…”