A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behavioural treatment for obsessive compulsive disorder in children and adolescents

Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) for young people with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) has become the treatment of first choice. However, the literature is largely based on studies emphasising exposure and response prevention. In this study, we report on a randomised controlled trial of CBT for young people carried out in typical outpatient clinic conditions which focused on cognitions. A randomised controlled trial compares 10 sessions of manualised cognitive behavioural treatment with a 12-week waiting list for adolescents and children with OCD. Assessors were blind to treatment allocation. 21 consecutive patients with OCD aged between 9 and 18 years were recruited. The group who received treatment improved more than a comparison group who waited for 3 months. The second group was treated subsequently using the same protocol and made similar gains. In conclusion, CBT can be delivered effectively to young people with OCD in typical outpatient settings

Illness management and recovery (IMR) in Danish community mental health centres

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses that can have a significant disabling impact on the lives of people. Psychosocial interventions that stress hope and recovery as a part of a multi-dimensional approach are possibly indicated to support people with severe mental illness in facilitating recovery. Illness Management and Recovery (IMR) is a curriculum-based psychosocial intervention designed as structured program with a recovery-oriented approach. The aim of IMR is to rehabilitate people with severe mental illnesses by helping them acquire knowledge and skills in managing their illness and achieve personal recovery goals. Previous randomised clinical trials indicate that IMR can be implemented with a good effect and a high fidelity though further trials are crucial to demonstrate the potential effectiveness of IMR.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The trial design is a randomised, assessor-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trial of the IMR program compared with treatment as usual for 200 participants diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder under the care of two community mental health centres in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is level of functioning at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes are disease symptoms; use of alcohol/drugs; individual meaning of recovery; hope; hospital admissions and out-patient psychiatric treatment at the end of treatment and the abovementioned and level of functioning at follow-up 21 months after baseline.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>If the results of this trial show IMR to be effective these positive results will strengthen the evidence of IMR as an effective comprehensive psychosocial intervention with a recovery-oriented approach for people with severe mental illness. This will have significant implications for the treatment and recovery of people with severe mental illness.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Registration number <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01361698">NCT01361698</a>.</p

The transtheoretical model of stages of change as a predictor of attendance, engagement and outcome in psychotherapy

Available from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DX210227 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreSIGLEGBUnited Kingdo

Evaluation of the Stages of Change Scales to measure client readiness for treatment in a mental health sample

The psychometric properties of the Stages of Change scales (McConnaughy, Prochaska, &amp; Velicer, 1983) were examined in a clinical sample of clients referred for psychotherapy. Sixty clients completed the Stages of Change scales and the Brief Symptoms Inventory before their first session of psychotherapy. The scales means, standard deviations and high internal consistency (all coefficients exceeding 0.7) compared favourably with previous research conducted by McConnaughy et al. (1983, 1989). The study investigates two methods of interpreting the Stages of Change scales. It discusses the methodological limitations in interpreting the highest scale score, and recommends instead the interpretation of the samples mean scores for the scales. It further assesses the theoretical underpinnings of the scales intercorrelations and argues in support of the “states” of change model proposed by Sutton (1996).</jats:p