The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale.

BACKGROUND: Agoraphobic avoidance of everyday situations is a common feature in many mental health disorders. Avoidance can be due to a variety of fears, including concerns about negative social evaluation, panicking, and harm from others. The result is inactivity and isolation. Behavioural avoidance tasks (BATs) provide an objective assessment of avoidance and in situ anxiety but are challenging to administer and lack standardisation. Our aim was to draw on the principles of BATs to develop a self-report measure of agoraphobia symptoms. METHOD: The scale was developed with 194 patients with agoraphobia in the context of psychosis, 427 individuals in the general population with high levels of agoraphobia, and 1094 individuals with low levels of agoraphobia. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used. Validity was assessed against a BAT, actigraphy data, and an existing agoraphobia measure. Test-retest reliability was assessed with 264 participants. RESULTS: An eight-item questionnaire with avoidance and distress response scales was developed. The avoidance and distress scales each had an excellent model fit and reliably assessed agoraphobic symptoms across the severity spectrum. All items were highly discriminative (avoidance: a = 1.24-5.43; distress: a = 1.60-5.48), indicating that small increases in agoraphobic symptoms led to a high probability of item endorsement. The scale demonstrated good internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale has excellent psychometric properties. Clinical cut-offs and score ranges are provided. This precise assessment tool may help focus attention on the clinically important problem of agoraphobic avoidance.

Understanding agoraphobic avoidance: the development of the Oxford Cognitions and Defences Questionnaire (O-CDQ).

BACKGROUND: Many patients with mental health disorders become increasingly isolated at home due to anxiety about going outside. A cognitive perspective on this difficulty is that threat cognitions lead to the safety-seeking behavioural response of agoraphobic avoidance. AIMS: We sought to develop a brief questionnaire, suitable for research and clinical practice, to assess a wide range of cognitions likely to lead to agoraphobic avoidance. We also included two additional subscales assessing two types of safety-seeking defensive responses: anxious avoidance and within-situation safety behaviours. METHOD: 198 patients with psychosis and agoraphobic avoidance and 1947 non-clinical individuals completed the item pool and measures of agoraphobic avoidance, generalised anxiety, social anxiety, depression and paranoia. Factor analyses were used to derive the Oxford Cognitions and Defences Questionnaire (O-CDQ). RESULTS: The O-CDQ consists of three subscales: threat cognitions (14 items), anxious avoidance (11 items), and within-situation safety behaviours (8 items). Separate confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated a good model fit for all subscales. The cognitions subscale was significantly associated with agoraphobic avoidance (r = .672, p < .001), social anxiety (r = .617, p < .001), generalized anxiety (r = .746, p < .001), depression (r = .619, p < .001) and paranoia (r = .655, p < .001). Additionally, both the O-CDQ avoidance (r = .867, p < .001) and within-situation safety behaviours (r = .757, p < .001) subscales were highly correlated with agoraphobic avoidance. The O-CDQ demonstrated excellent internal consistency (cognitions Cronbach's alpha = .93, avoidance Cronbach's alpha = .94, within-situation Cronbach's alpha = .93) and test-re-test reliability (cognitions ICC = 0.88, avoidance ICC = 0.92, within-situation ICC = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The O-CDQ, consisting of three separate scales, has excellent psychometric properties and may prove a helpful tool for understanding agoraphobic avoidance across mental health disorders.

The psychological journey of weight gain in psychosis.

BACKGROUND: Rapid weight gain is common with antipsychotic medication. Lost confidence, low mood and medication non-adherence often follow. Yet, the dynamic interactions between the physical and psychological consequences of weight gain, and implications for intervention, are unknown. OBJECTIVES: We examined first-person accounts of weight gain to identify preferences for weight change interventions. DESIGN: A qualitative design was used to explore patients' experiences of weight change in the context of psychosis. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews, analysed using grounded theory, were conducted with 10 patients with psychosis. Sample validation was conducted with peer researchers with lived experience of psychosis. RESULTS: Patients described that initially the extent and speed of weight gain was overshadowed by psychotic experiences and their treatment. This led to a shocking realisation of weight gain. The psychological impact of weight gain, most strikingly on the self-concept, was profound. Loss of self-worth and changed appearance amplified a sense of vulnerability. There were further consequences on mood, activity and psychotic experiences, such as voices commenting on appearance, that were additional obstacles in the challenging process of weight loss. Sedative effects of medication also contributed. Unsuccessful weight loss left little hope and few preferences for interventions. Early information about common weight gain trajectories and working with experts-by-experience were valued. Rebuilding self-confidence, efficacy and worth may be a necessary first step. CONCLUSIONS: The journey of weight gain in patients with psychosis is characterised by loss of self-worth, agency and hope. There are multiple stages in the journey, each with different psychological reactions, that may need different treatment responses.

Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England.

BACKGROUND: An invisible threat has visibly altered the world. Governments and key institutions have had to implement decisive responses to the danger posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Imposed change will increase the likelihood that alternative explanations take hold. In a proportion of the general population there may be strong scepticism, fear of being misled, and false conspiracy theories. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of conspiracy thinking about the pandemic and test associations with reduced adherence to government guidelines. METHODS: A non-probability online survey with 2501 adults in England, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, income, and region. RESULTS: Approximately 50% of this population showed little evidence of conspiracy thinking, 25% showed a degree of endorsement, 15% showed a consistent pattern of endorsement, and 10% had very high levels of endorsement. Higher levels of coronavirus conspiracy thinking were associated with less adherence to all government guidelines and less willingness to take diagnostic or antibody tests or to be vaccinated. Such ideas were also associated with paranoia, general vaccination conspiracy beliefs, climate change conspiracy belief, a conspiracy mentality, and distrust in institutions and professions. Holding coronavirus conspiracy beliefs was also associated with being more likely to share opinions. CONCLUSIONS: In England there is appreciable endorsement of conspiracy beliefs about coronavirus. Such ideas do not appear confined to the fringes. The conspiracy beliefs connect to other forms of mistrust and are associated with less compliance with government guidelines and greater unwillingness to take up future tests and treatment.