Understanding Health-Related Social Risks.

Because of the established contribution of social factors to health outcomes, approaches that address upstream determinants of health have increasingly been recognized as cost-effective means to improve population health. Understanding and usage of precise terminology is important to facilitate collaboration across disciplines. Social determinants of health affect everyone, not just the socially and economically disadvantaged, whereas health-related social risks (HRSR) are specific adverse conditions at the individual or family level that are associated with poor health and related to the immediate challenges individuals face. Health-related social needs account for patient preference in addressing identified social risks. The use of validated screening tools is important to capture risk factors in a standardized fashion to support research and quality improvement. There is a paucity of studies that address HRSR in the context of radiology. This review provides an understanding of HRSR and outlines various ways in which radiologists can work to mitigate them.

A psychological intervention for engaging dialogically with auditory hallucinations (Talking With Voices): A single-site, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

There is growing clinical interest in addressing relationship dynamics between service-users and their voices. The Talking With Voices (TwV) trial aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of a novel dialogical intervention to reduce distress associated with voices amongst adults diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. The single-site, single-blind (rater) randomised controlled trial recruited 50 participants who were allocated 1:1 to treatment as usual (TAU), or TAU plus up to 26 sessions of TwV therapy. Participants were assessed at baseline and again at end of treatment (six-months). The primary outcomes were quantitative and qualitative assessments of feasibility and acceptability. Secondary outcomes involved clinical measures, including targeted instruments for voice-hearing, dissociation, and emotional distress. The trial achieved 100 % of the target sample, 24 of whom were allocated to therapy and 26 to TAU. The trial had high retention (40/50 [80 %] participants at six-months) and high intervention adherence (21/24 [87.5 %] receiving ≥8 sessions). Signals of efficacy were shown in targeted measures of voice-hearing, dissociation, and perceptions of recovery. Analysis on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale indicated that there were no differences in means of general psychosis symptom scores in TwV compared to the control group. There were four serious adverse events in the therapy group and eight in TAU, none of which were related to study proceedings. The trial demonstrates the acceptability of the intervention and the feasibility of delivering it under controlled, randomised conditions. An adequately powered definitive trial is necessary to provide robust evidence regarding efficacy evaluation and cost-effectiveness. Trial registration: ISRCTN 45308981.

A treatment protocol to guide the delivery of dialogical engagement with auditory hallucinations: Experience from the Talking With Voices pilot trial.

PURPOSE: To present a treatment protocol for delivering Talking With Voices, a novel intervention for people with psychosis that involves dialogical engagement with auditory hallucinations. METHOD: This paper presents a manualized approach to therapy employed in the Talking With Voices trial, a feasibility and acceptability randomized control trial of 50 adult participants. A rationale for following a treatment manual is provided, followed by the theoretical underpinnings of the intervention and its principles and values, including the main tenet that voices can often be understood as dissociated parts of the self which serve a protective function by indicating social-emotional vulnerabilities. The four therapy phases for improving the relationship between the voice-hearer and their voices are outlined: (1) engagement and psychoeducation, (2) creating a formulation, (3) dialoguing with voices, and (4) consolidating outcomes, including key milestones at each phase. Implementation issues are discussed, as well as recommendations for best practice and future research. RESULTS: The Talking With Voices treatment protocol indicates that it is feasible to manualize a dissociation-based approach to support service users who are distressed by hearing voices. CONCLUSION: For some individuals, it is possible to engage in productive dialogue with even extremely hostile or distressing voices. Developing coping strategies, creating a formulation, and ultimately establishing a dialogue with voices has the potential to improve the relationship between voice(s) and voice-hearer. Further research is now required to evaluate feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy. PRACTITIONER POINTS: It is feasible to integrate a dissociation model of voice-hearing within a psychological intervention for people with psychosis. Combining psychosocial education, formulation and direct dialogue can be used to facilitate a more peaceful relationship between clients and their voices. Practitioners trained in other therapeutic modalities can draw on existing transferrable skills to dialogue with their clients' voices. The input of those with lived experience of mental health difficulties has an important role in guiding treatment design and delivery.

Antipsychotic drugs versus cognitive behavioural therapy versus a combination of both in people with psychosis: a randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available for head-to-head comparisons of psychosocial interventions and pharmacological interventions in psychosis. We aimed to establish whether a randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus antipsychotic drugs versus a combination of both would be feasible in people with psychosis. METHODS: We did a single-site, single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial in people with psychosis who used services in National Health Service trusts across Greater Manchester, UK. Eligible participants were aged 16 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service; were in contact with mental health services, under the care of a consultant psychiatrist; scored at least 4 on delusions or hallucinations items, or at least 5 on suspiciousness, persecution, or grandiosity items on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS); had capacity to consent; and were help-seeking. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, CBT, or antipsychotics plus CBT. Randomisation was done via a secure web-based randomisation system (Sealed Envelope), with randomised permuted blocks of 4 and 6, stratified by gender and first episode status. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant. Participants were followed up for 1 year. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data about recruitment, retention, and acceptability), and the primary efficacy outcome was the PANSS total score (assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). Non-neurological side-effects were assessed systemically with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses were done on an as-treated basis. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN06022197. FINDINGS: Of 138 patients referred to the study, 75 were recruited and randomly assigned-26 to CBT, 24 to antipsychotics, and 25 to antipsychotics plus CBT. Attrition was low, and retention high, with only four withdrawals across all groups. 40 (78%) of 51 participants allocated to CBT attended six or more sessions. Of the 49 participants randomised to antipsychotics, 11 (22%) were not prescribed a regular antipsychotic. Median duration of total antipsychotic treatment was 44·5 weeks (IQR 26-51). PANSS total score was significantly reduced in the combined intervention group compared with the CBT group (-5·65 [95% CI -10·37 to -0·93]; p=0·019). PANSS total scores did not differ significantly between the combined group and the antipsychotics group (-4·52 [95% CI -9·30 to 0·26]; p=0·064) or between the antipsychotics and CBT groups (-1·13 [95% CI -5·81 to 3·55]; p=0·637). Significantly fewer side-effects, as measured with the Antipsychotic Non-neurological Side Effects Rating Scale, were noted in the CBT group than in the antipsychotics (3·22 [95% CI 0·58 to 5·87]; p=0·017) or antipsychotics plus CBT (3·99 [95% CI 1·36 to 6·64]; p=0·003) groups. Only one serious adverse event was thought to be related to the trial (an overdose of three paracetamol tablets in the CBT group). INTERPRETATION: A head-to-head clinical trial of CBT versus antipsychotics versus the combination of the two is feasible and safe in people with first-episode psychosis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Emotional response to a therapeutic technique: The social Broad Minded Affective Coping.

OBJECTIVES: It has been suggested that savouring positive memories can generate positive emotions. Increasing positive emotion can have a range of benefits including reducing attention to and experiences of threat. This study investigated individuals' emotional reactions to a guided mental imagery task focussing on positive social memory called the 'social Broad Minded Affective Coping (BMAC)' technique. The study examined possible predictors of individuals' responses to this intervention. METHOD: An internet-based, within-group, repeated-measures design was used. One hundred and twenty-three participants completed self-report measures of self-attacking and social safeness/pleasure. They were then guided through the social BMAC. Participants completed state measures of positive and negative affect and social safeness/pleasure before and after the intervention. Forty-nine participants took part in a 2-week follow-up. RESULTS: It was found that safe/warm positive affect, relaxed positive affect and feelings of social safeness increased following the social BMAC, whilst negative affect decreased. In addition, it was found that people scoring higher on inadequate self-attacking benefited most from this intervention. Changes in affect were not maintained at the 2-week follow-up. CONCLUSION: The results provide preliminary support for the efficacy of the social BMAC in activating specific types of mood (those associated with safeness rather than drive/reward). This task has potential as part of therapeutic interventions directed at clinical groups, but further evaluation is needed. PRACTITIONER POINTS: The social Broad Minded Affective Coping (BMAC) was related to improvements in forms of positive affect linked to the affiliative system. This task may be helpful in inducing these positive mood states within therapy. Further evaluation comparing the BMAC to a control task is needed. Individuals with a greater fear of compassion or more hated-self-criticism may gain less from the task, although effects were small.