Patricia Gooding, Daniel Pratt, Danielle Edwards, Yvonne Awenat, Richard J Drake, Richard Emsley, Steven Jones, Navneet Kapur, Fiona Lobban, Sarah Peters, Bradley Boardman, Kamelia Harris, Charlotte Huggett, Gillian Haddock
{"title":"以自杀为中心的精神病心理干预的潜在机制和疗效,对抗自杀的认知方法(CARMS):一项在英国进行的多中心、评估者屏蔽、随机对照试验","authors":"Patricia Gooding, Daniel Pratt, Danielle Edwards, Yvonne Awenat, Richard J Drake, Richard Emsley, Steven Jones, Navneet Kapur, Fiona Lobban, Sarah Peters, Bradley Boardman, Kamelia Harris, Charlotte Huggett, Gillian Haddock","doi":"10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00399-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Background</h3>There is a need for theoretically grounded and testable suicide-focused psychological therapies, especially in people with severe mental health problems, specifically non-affective psychosis. We aimed to test both the underlying mechanisms and efficacy of a suicide-focused therapy, cognitive behavioural suicide prevention for psychosis (CBSPp).<h3>Methods</h3>We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial conducted at four UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Participants were eligible for enrolment if they were 18 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for non-affective psychosis (F20–F29); had self-reported suicidal experiences in the 3 months before recruitment; were under the care of an NHS mental health services team; were not receiving a psychological therapy as part of a similar trial; had sufficient competency in the English language not to need an interpreter to participate; and were able to give informed consent. After screening for eligibility and completion of baseline assessments, participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the treatment as usual group (control) or CBSPp therapy plus standard treatment group (treatment), with stratification by use of antidepressant medication and NHS site. Randomisation took place using an online Sealed Envelope randomisation procedure conducted and overseen by the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre Clinical Trials Unit (MCTU). This system was accessed only by specially allocated staff (eg, the CARMS Trial Manager or the MCTU Trial manager). When the system randomly allocated a participant, an unmasked email confirmation was sent to the unmasked coprincipal investigator and the CARMS Trial Manager (also unmasked). Assessors, the trial statistician, and one coprincipal investigator were masked to allocation group. Participants were informed of their randomised allocation group by an unmasked CARMS staff member. Experts-by-experience were involved in all stages of the research. For those in the treatment group, approximately 24 one-to-one therapy sessions were offered, usually weekly, for around 50 min per session. Assessments were conducted at baseline, month 6, and month 12. The primary outcome was suicide ideation severity measured by the 25-item Adult Suicide Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ), assessed at month 6 relative to baseline. Outcome analyses used mixed models in the intention-to-treat population. Planned mediation indirect linear regression models examined appraisals of poor social support, emotional difficulties, interpersonal problem-solving difficulties, defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness as mediators at 6 months with allocation condition (treatment <em>vs</em> control) as the predictor variable and suicidal ideation severity (ASIQ) at 6 months as the outcome variable, whilst controlling for baseline levels of the mediator and outcome variables. The trial was registered before recruitment at <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg aria-label=\"Opens in new window\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"20\" viewbox=\"0 0 8 8\"><path d=\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\"></path></svg></span> (<span><span>NCT03114917</span><svg aria-label=\"Opens in new window\" focusable=\"false\" height=\"20\" viewbox=\"0 0 8 8\"><path d=\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\"></path></svg></span>) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN17776666) and is complete.<h3>Findings</h3>We recruited participants from four NHS sites from June 21, 2017, to Nov 25, 2020, with the final 12-month assessment completed on Jan 10, 2022. 479 participants were screened for eligibility, and of these 329 (69%) provided consent and were enrolled. After 69 participants were lost to follow-up, 292 participants were randomly allocated to the treatment and control groups (149 [51%] and 143 [49%], respectively). At baseline, 161 (55%) participants were male and 130 (45%) were female; one participant (<1%) in the treatment group was missing gender data. Mean age was 35·1 years (SD 13·2; range 18–69), and 247 (85%) were White or Caucasian. Severity of suicidal ideation was not statistically different between the treatment (n=136) and the control groups (n=116) at 6 months (p=0·07; Cohen's <em>d</em> –0·20 [95% CI –0·42 to 0·02]). A significant indirect mediation effect (–2·85, –7·00 to –0·23) showed that therapy strengthened social support appraisals which, in turn, reduced suicidal ideation severity at 6 months more in the treatment group than in the control group. Suicide attempts were the most frequent severe adverse event (132 attempts in 26 participants in the treatment group <em>vs</em> 91 attempts in 30 participants in the control group). There were four deaths in the CARMS study, none of which were by suicide or considered related to treatment.<h3>Interpretation</h3>CBSPp had no effect on suicidal ideation at 6 months, but it did have a significant indirect effect via improving appraisals of social support. It is important to explore how suicide-focused therapies can be developed and implemented in mental health services so that they maximally enhance appraisals of social support and social connection in ways that endure.<h3>Funding</h3>Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership (reference number: 13/161/25).","PeriodicalId":48784,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Psychiatry","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":30.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Underlying mechanisms and efficacy of a suicide-focused psychological intervention for psychosis, the Cognitive Approaches to Combatting Suicidality (CARMS): a multicentre, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial in the UK\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Gooding, Daniel Pratt, Danielle Edwards, Yvonne Awenat, Richard J Drake, Richard Emsley, Steven Jones, Navneet Kapur, Fiona Lobban, Sarah Peters, Bradley Boardman, Kamelia Harris, Charlotte Huggett, Gillian Haddock\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00399-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Background</h3>There is a need for theoretically grounded and testable suicide-focused psychological therapies, especially in people with severe mental health problems, specifically non-affective psychosis. We aimed to test both the underlying mechanisms and efficacy of a suicide-focused therapy, cognitive behavioural suicide prevention for psychosis (CBSPp).<h3>Methods</h3>We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial conducted at four UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Participants were eligible for enrolment if they were 18 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for non-affective psychosis (F20–F29); had self-reported suicidal experiences in the 3 months before recruitment; were under the care of an NHS mental health services team; were not receiving a psychological therapy as part of a similar trial; had sufficient competency in the English language not to need an interpreter to participate; and were able to give informed consent. After screening for eligibility and completion of baseline assessments, participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the treatment as usual group (control) or CBSPp therapy plus standard treatment group (treatment), with stratification by use of antidepressant medication and NHS site. Randomisation took place using an online Sealed Envelope randomisation procedure conducted and overseen by the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre Clinical Trials Unit (MCTU). This system was accessed only by specially allocated staff (eg, the CARMS Trial Manager or the MCTU Trial manager). When the system randomly allocated a participant, an unmasked email confirmation was sent to the unmasked coprincipal investigator and the CARMS Trial Manager (also unmasked). Assessors, the trial statistician, and one coprincipal investigator were masked to allocation group. Participants were informed of their randomised allocation group by an unmasked CARMS staff member. Experts-by-experience were involved in all stages of the research. For those in the treatment group, approximately 24 one-to-one therapy sessions were offered, usually weekly, for around 50 min per session. Assessments were conducted at baseline, month 6, and month 12. The primary outcome was suicide ideation severity measured by the 25-item Adult Suicide Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ), assessed at month 6 relative to baseline. Outcome analyses used mixed models in the intention-to-treat population. Planned mediation indirect linear regression models examined appraisals of poor social support, emotional difficulties, interpersonal problem-solving difficulties, defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness as mediators at 6 months with allocation condition (treatment <em>vs</em> control) as the predictor variable and suicidal ideation severity (ASIQ) at 6 months as the outcome variable, whilst controlling for baseline levels of the mediator and outcome variables. The trial was registered before recruitment at <span><span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg aria-label=\\\"Opens in new window\\\" focusable=\\\"false\\\" height=\\\"20\\\" viewbox=\\\"0 0 8 8\\\"><path d=\\\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\\\"></path></svg></span> (<span><span>NCT03114917</span><svg aria-label=\\\"Opens in new window\\\" focusable=\\\"false\\\" height=\\\"20\\\" viewbox=\\\"0 0 8 8\\\"><path d=\\\"M1.12949 2.1072V1H7V6.85795H5.89111V2.90281L0.784057 8L0 7.21635L5.11902 2.1072H1.12949Z\\\"></path></svg></span>) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN17776666) and is complete.<h3>Findings</h3>We recruited participants from four NHS sites from June 21, 2017, to Nov 25, 2020, with the final 12-month assessment completed on Jan 10, 2022. 479 participants were screened for eligibility, and of these 329 (69%) provided consent and were enrolled. After 69 participants were lost to follow-up, 292 participants were randomly allocated to the treatment and control groups (149 [51%] and 143 [49%], respectively). At baseline, 161 (55%) participants were male and 130 (45%) were female; one participant (<1%) in the treatment group was missing gender data. Mean age was 35·1 years (SD 13·2; range 18–69), and 247 (85%) were White or Caucasian. Severity of suicidal ideation was not statistically different between the treatment (n=136) and the control groups (n=116) at 6 months (p=0·07; Cohen's <em>d</em> –0·20 [95% CI –0·42 to 0·02]). A significant indirect mediation effect (–2·85, –7·00 to –0·23) showed that therapy strengthened social support appraisals which, in turn, reduced suicidal ideation severity at 6 months more in the treatment group than in the control group. Suicide attempts were the most frequent severe adverse event (132 attempts in 26 participants in the treatment group <em>vs</em> 91 attempts in 30 participants in the control group). There were four deaths in the CARMS study, none of which were by suicide or considered related to treatment.<h3>Interpretation</h3>CBSPp had no effect on suicidal ideation at 6 months, but it did have a significant indirect effect via improving appraisals of social support. It is important to explore how suicide-focused therapies can be developed and implemented in mental health services so that they maximally enhance appraisals of social support and social connection in ways that endure.<h3>Funding</h3>Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership (reference number: 13/161/25).\",\"PeriodicalId\":48784,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lancet Psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":30.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lancet Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00399-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00399-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景需要有理论依据和可测试的以自杀为重点的心理治疗,特别是对有严重精神健康问题的人,特别是非情感性精神病。我们的目的是测试一种以自杀为中心的治疗方法——精神病认知行为自杀预防(CBSPp)的潜在机制和疗效。方法我们在4个英国国家卫生服务(NHS)站点进行了一项多中心、评估器屏蔽、随机对照试验。如果参与者年满18岁,则有资格参加;符合ICD-10非情感性精神病标准(F20-F29);在招募前3个月内有过自杀经历;在国民保健服务精神卫生服务小组的照顾下;没有接受心理治疗作为类似试验的一部分;有足够的英语能力,不需要口译员参与;并且能够给予知情同意。在筛选合格性和完成基线评估后,参与者以1:1的比例随机分配到常规治疗组(对照组)或CBSPp治疗加标准治疗组(治疗组),并通过使用抗抑郁药物和NHS站点进行分层。随机化使用在线密封信封随机化程序进行,由曼彻斯特学术健康科学中心临床试验单位(MCTU)进行和监督。该系统只能由专门分配的人员(例如,CARMS试用经理或MCTU试用经理)访问。当系统随机分配一名参与者时,将向未戴面具的首席研究员和CARMS试验经理(也未戴面具)发送一封未戴面具的电子邮件确认。评估员、试验统计学家和一名主要调查员被分配到分配组。参与者被告知他们的随机分配组由一个不戴面具的CARMS工作人员。经验丰富的专家参与了研究的各个阶段。对于那些在治疗组,提供大约24个一对一的治疗疗程,通常每周,每次约50分钟。在基线、第6个月和第12个月进行评估。主要结果是自杀意念严重程度,通过25项成人自杀意念问卷(ASIQ)测量,在第6个月相对于基线进行评估。结果分析在意向治疗人群中使用混合模型。计划调解间接线性回归模型以分配条件(治疗vs对照组)作为预测变量和自杀意念严重程度(ASIQ)作为结果变量,同时控制中介和结果变量的基线水平,检验了6个月时不良社会支持、情感困难、人际问题解决困难、失败、困住和绝望作为中介变量的评价。该试验在招募前已在ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03114917)和ISRCTN (ISRCTN17776666)上注册,现已完成。研究结果:我们从2017年6月21日至2020年11月25日从四个NHS站点招募了参与者,最终的12个月评估于2022年1月10日完成。479名参与者进行了资格筛选,其中329名(69%)同意并入组。69名受试者失访后,将292名受试者随机分为实验组和对照组(149人[51%]和143人[49%])。在基线时,161名(55%)参与者为男性,130名(45%)参与者为女性;治疗组中有1名参与者(1%)缺少性别数据。平均年龄35.1岁(SD 13.2;年龄在18-69岁之间),白人或白种人247例(85%)。治疗组(n=136)与对照组(n=116) 6个月时自杀意念严重程度差异无统计学意义(p= 0.07;Cohen’s d - 0.20 [95% CI - 0.42 ~ 0.02])。显著的间接中介效应(- 2.85、- 7.00至- 0.23)表明,治疗强化了社会支持评价,从而在6个月时,治疗组比对照组更能降低自杀意念严重程度。自杀企图是最常见的严重不良事件(治疗组26名参与者中有132人企图自杀,对照组30名参与者中有91人企图自杀)。CARMS研究中有4例死亡,没有一例是自杀,也没有一例被认为与治疗有关。结论cbspp对6个月儿童的自杀意念没有影响,但通过改善社会支持评价有显著的间接影响。重要的是要探索如何在精神卫生服务中开发和实施以自杀为重点的治疗方法,以便他们以持久的方式最大限度地加强对社会支持和社会联系的评估。供资效果和机制评价方案,医学研究理事会和国家卫生和保健研究所伙伴关系(参考编号:13/161/25)。
Underlying mechanisms and efficacy of a suicide-focused psychological intervention for psychosis, the Cognitive Approaches to Combatting Suicidality (CARMS): a multicentre, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial in the UK
Background
There is a need for theoretically grounded and testable suicide-focused psychological therapies, especially in people with severe mental health problems, specifically non-affective psychosis. We aimed to test both the underlying mechanisms and efficacy of a suicide-focused therapy, cognitive behavioural suicide prevention for psychosis (CBSPp).
Methods
We did a multicentre, assessor-masked, randomised controlled trial conducted at four UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Participants were eligible for enrolment if they were 18 years or older; met ICD-10 criteria for non-affective psychosis (F20–F29); had self-reported suicidal experiences in the 3 months before recruitment; were under the care of an NHS mental health services team; were not receiving a psychological therapy as part of a similar trial; had sufficient competency in the English language not to need an interpreter to participate; and were able to give informed consent. After screening for eligibility and completion of baseline assessments, participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the treatment as usual group (control) or CBSPp therapy plus standard treatment group (treatment), with stratification by use of antidepressant medication and NHS site. Randomisation took place using an online Sealed Envelope randomisation procedure conducted and overseen by the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre Clinical Trials Unit (MCTU). This system was accessed only by specially allocated staff (eg, the CARMS Trial Manager or the MCTU Trial manager). When the system randomly allocated a participant, an unmasked email confirmation was sent to the unmasked coprincipal investigator and the CARMS Trial Manager (also unmasked). Assessors, the trial statistician, and one coprincipal investigator were masked to allocation group. Participants were informed of their randomised allocation group by an unmasked CARMS staff member. Experts-by-experience were involved in all stages of the research. For those in the treatment group, approximately 24 one-to-one therapy sessions were offered, usually weekly, for around 50 min per session. Assessments were conducted at baseline, month 6, and month 12. The primary outcome was suicide ideation severity measured by the 25-item Adult Suicide Ideation Questionnaire (ASIQ), assessed at month 6 relative to baseline. Outcome analyses used mixed models in the intention-to-treat population. Planned mediation indirect linear regression models examined appraisals of poor social support, emotional difficulties, interpersonal problem-solving difficulties, defeat, entrapment, and hopelessness as mediators at 6 months with allocation condition (treatment vs control) as the predictor variable and suicidal ideation severity (ASIQ) at 6 months as the outcome variable, whilst controlling for baseline levels of the mediator and outcome variables. The trial was registered before recruitment at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03114917) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN17776666) and is complete.
Findings
We recruited participants from four NHS sites from June 21, 2017, to Nov 25, 2020, with the final 12-month assessment completed on Jan 10, 2022. 479 participants were screened for eligibility, and of these 329 (69%) provided consent and were enrolled. After 69 participants were lost to follow-up, 292 participants were randomly allocated to the treatment and control groups (149 [51%] and 143 [49%], respectively). At baseline, 161 (55%) participants were male and 130 (45%) were female; one participant (<1%) in the treatment group was missing gender data. Mean age was 35·1 years (SD 13·2; range 18–69), and 247 (85%) were White or Caucasian. Severity of suicidal ideation was not statistically different between the treatment (n=136) and the control groups (n=116) at 6 months (p=0·07; Cohen's d –0·20 [95% CI –0·42 to 0·02]). A significant indirect mediation effect (–2·85, –7·00 to –0·23) showed that therapy strengthened social support appraisals which, in turn, reduced suicidal ideation severity at 6 months more in the treatment group than in the control group. Suicide attempts were the most frequent severe adverse event (132 attempts in 26 participants in the treatment group vs 91 attempts in 30 participants in the control group). There were four deaths in the CARMS study, none of which were by suicide or considered related to treatment.
Interpretation
CBSPp had no effect on suicidal ideation at 6 months, but it did have a significant indirect effect via improving appraisals of social support. It is important to explore how suicide-focused therapies can be developed and implemented in mental health services so that they maximally enhance appraisals of social support and social connection in ways that endure.
Funding
Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership (reference number: 13/161/25).
期刊介绍:
The Lancet Psychiatry is a globally renowned and trusted resource for groundbreaking research in the field of psychiatry. We specialize in publishing original studies that contribute to transforming and shedding light on important aspects of psychiatric practice. Our comprehensive coverage extends to diverse topics including psychopharmacology, psychotherapy, and psychosocial approaches that address psychiatric disorders throughout the lifespan. We aim to channel innovative treatments and examine the biological research that forms the foundation of such advancements. Our journal also explores novel service delivery methods and promotes fresh perspectives on mental illness, emphasizing the significant contributions of social psychiatry.