The British Journal of Psychiatry (2008) 193: 344-345. doi: 10.1192/bjp.193.4.344b
© 2008 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Laws, K. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Laws, K. R.

Correspondence

Risk of harm after psychological intervention

P. J. McKenna

Benito Menni Complex Assistencial en Salut Mental, Barcelona, and Cibersam, Spain. Email: mckennapeter1{at}gmail.com

R. Salvador

Benito Menni Complex Assistencial en Salut Mental, Barcelona, and Cibersam, Spain

D. Lynch

Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow, UK

K. R. Laws

School of Psychology, University of Hertfordshire, UK

Edited by Kiriakos Xenitidis and Colin Campbell

In their trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) and family intervention for relapse prevention in psychosis,1 Garety et al state: `There were no differences between the groups, in either [the no-carer or carer] pathway, in the primary outcomes of patterns of remission and relapse'. However, data in their Table 1 indicates that more patients who received CBT relapsed than those who received treatment as usual (TAU) (CBT 60/122, TAU 41/119 for all the patients randomised to CBT or TAU). A statistical analysis (logistic model) for the proportion of relapses reveals a significant reduced relapse frequency for TAU.

The differences remain significant (P=0.0153) when only patients in the no-carer pathway are considered (CBT 53/97, TAU 34/92), but there are no differences for those in the carer pathway (CBT 7/25, TAU 7/27), although here the numbers are small.

It is possible that differences in gender and age distribution between the CBT and TAU arms of the trial, or even differences between centres, could have led to different results in the statistical analyses performed by the authors. However, randomisation should have minimised such differences and the authors make no mention of them in the paper.

Hence, on the basis of the results reported, CBT appears to have a detrimental effect on relapse in non-affective psychosis.

REFERENCES

    1
  1. Garety PA, Fowler DG, Freeman D, Bebbington P, Dunn G, Kuipers E. Cognitive–behavioural therapy and family intervention for relapse prevention and symptom reduction in psychosis: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 2008; 192: 412 -23.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Laws, K. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McKenna, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Laws, K. R.