Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T07:14:22.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Author's reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

D. Turkington*
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle, School of Neurosciences and Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry Royal Victoria Infirmary Queen Victoria Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2002 

We are grateful to Drs Ruddy and Mitchell for the opportunity to clarify the methodology in this study. In relation to the primary outcomes of the study, baseline means are given with change scores and confidence intervals and not standard deviations. The NNT of 10 for a 25% improvement in insight with CBT was calculated from the following results: 92 out of 257 CBT patients achieved a good clinical improvement compared with 43 out of 165 in the TAU limb. Similarly, a good outcome for overall symptoms was achieved in 112 out of 257 v. 59 out of 165 and for depression in 114 out of 257 v. 55 out of 165, respectively. The NNTs given can therefore be compared directly with those in the smaller studies listed above. The good outcomes in TAU are interesting and presumably relate to increased use of atypical antipsychotics and the effects of assertive outreach teams. The negative score given for burden of care in the CBT group should indeed be positive, as pointed out in the above correspondence. The proportion of patients treated with a carer was the same in both limbs of the study. However, as TAU patients and carers were not receiving an active comparable intervention to control for therapist time, satisfaction was not rated in that group.

This was the first pragmatic field study designed specifically to answer the question of translation as posed in the Cochrane review (Reference Jones, Cormac and MotaJones et al, 1999). We were aiming to discover whether any effect would accrue in a community setting with non-expert therapists using CBT. Having shown a clear effect to be present the study should now be replicated with a control psychological treatment to control for non-specific factors (Reference Sensky, Turkington and KingdonSensky et al, 2000). It will be important that this study be run from a position of clinical equipoise as indicated above. The study was adequately powered to detect the symptomatic improvement at the 25% level as calculated from our pilot study (Reference Turkington and KingdonTurkington & Kingdon, 2000). The follow-up study will deal with the issue of whether or not these clinically meaningful outcomes are durable and will also include data on relapse.

Declaration of interest

The study in question was funded by Pfizer. D.T. has undertaken consultancy work for Pfizer and has received honoraria and hospitality from Pfizer, Janssen and Lilly in relation to conference presentations on the subject of CBT in schizophrenia.

References

Jones, C., Cormac, I., Mota, J., et al (1999) Cognitive behaviour therapy for schizophrenia. In Cochrane Collaboration (Issue 4). Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Sensky, T., Turkington, D., Kingdon, D., et al (2000) A randomized controlled trial of cognitive–behavioural therapy for persistent symptoms in schizophrenia resistant to medication. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 165172.Google Scholar
Turkington, D. & Kingdon, D. (2000) Cognitive–behavioural techniques for general psychiatrists in the management of patients with psychoses. British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 101106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.