The Effect of Reducing the "Jumping to Conclusions" Bias on Treatment Decision-Making Capacity in Psychosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Mediation Analysis.


Journal

Schizophrenia bulletin
ISSN: 1745-1701
Titre abrégé: Schizophr Bull
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0236760

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
18 06 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 28 9 2018
medline: 1 7 2020
entrez: 28 9 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Evidence-based psychological interventions to support treatment decision-making capacity (capacity) in psychosis do not currently exist. This study sought to establish whether reducing the extent to which this group form conclusions based on limited evidence, also known as the "jumping-to-conclusions" (JTC) bias, could improve capacity. In a randomized controlled open trial, 37 patients aged 16-65 years diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-session intervention designed to reduce the JTC bias (MCT-JTC; adapted from Metacognitive Training [MCT]) or an attention control (AC) condition designed to control for therapist attention, duration, modality, and face validity. Primary outcomes were treatment decision-making capacity measured by the MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) and the jumping-to-conclusions reasoning bias measured by draws to decision on the beads task, each of which were administered by the psychologist delivering the intervention. Those receiving MCT-JTC had large improvements in overall capacity (d = 0.96, P < .05) and appreciation (d = 0.87, P < .05) compared to those receiving AC. Reduction in JTC mediated a large proportion of the effect of group allocation on understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and overall MacCAT-T scores. This is the first experimental investigation of the effect of a psychological intervention on treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis. It provides early evidence that reducing the JTC bias is associated with large and rapid improvements in capacity. Due to limited resources, assessments were administered by the researchers delivering the intervention. Results should therefore be considered preliminary and a larger, definitive trial addressing methodological limitations is warranted.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Evidence-based psychological interventions to support treatment decision-making capacity (capacity) in psychosis do not currently exist. This study sought to establish whether reducing the extent to which this group form conclusions based on limited evidence, also known as the "jumping-to-conclusions" (JTC) bias, could improve capacity.
METHODS
In a randomized controlled open trial, 37 patients aged 16-65 years diagnosed with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-session intervention designed to reduce the JTC bias (MCT-JTC; adapted from Metacognitive Training [MCT]) or an attention control (AC) condition designed to control for therapist attention, duration, modality, and face validity. Primary outcomes were treatment decision-making capacity measured by the MacArthur Competency Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) and the jumping-to-conclusions reasoning bias measured by draws to decision on the beads task, each of which were administered by the psychologist delivering the intervention.
RESULTS
Those receiving MCT-JTC had large improvements in overall capacity (d = 0.96, P < .05) and appreciation (d = 0.87, P < .05) compared to those receiving AC. Reduction in JTC mediated a large proportion of the effect of group allocation on understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and overall MacCAT-T scores.
CONCLUSION
This is the first experimental investigation of the effect of a psychological intervention on treatment decision-making capacity in psychosis. It provides early evidence that reducing the JTC bias is associated with large and rapid improvements in capacity. Due to limited resources, assessments were administered by the researchers delivering the intervention. Results should therefore be considered preliminary and a larger, definitive trial addressing methodological limitations is warranted.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30260458
pii: 5107520
doi: 10.1093/schbul/sby136
pmc: PMC6581146
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

784-793

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Références

Clin Trials. 2012 Aug;9(4):396-407
pubmed: 22752633
Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:593-614
pubmed: 16968208
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jun 18;5:302
pubmed: 22709616
Behav Cogn Psychother. 2014 Jan;42(1):105-10
pubmed: 23631928
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;48(12):1126-36
pubmed: 24159051
Schizophr Bull. 2014 Mar;40(2):300-13
pubmed: 23413104
Psychiatr Serv. 2009 Aug;60(8):1107-12
pubmed: 19648199
Q J Exp Psychol A. 1988 Nov;40(4):801-12
pubmed: 3212213
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;60(12):1234-8
pubmed: 17998077
Behav Res Methods. 2008 Aug;40(3):879-91
pubmed: 18697684
Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;18(3):233-9
pubmed: 17444920
Schizophr Res. 2013 Mar;144(1-3):118-21
pubmed: 23313358
Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Oct;211(4):205-215
pubmed: 28882828
Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Mar 15;57(6):609-16
pubmed: 15780847
Behav Res Methods. 2011 Sep;43(3):692-700
pubmed: 21487904
Psychol Med. 2001 Feb;31(2):189-95
pubmed: 11232907
J Abnorm Psychol. 2017 May;126(4):406-415
pubmed: 28277733
Br J Clin Psychol. 2005 Jun;44(Pt 2):193-207
pubmed: 16004654
Qual Life Res. 2015 Feb;24(2):391-8
pubmed: 25064207
Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jun;34(4):358-66
pubmed: 24866025
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2004 Nov;36(4):717-31
pubmed: 15641418
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82
pubmed: 3806354
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;187:372-8
pubmed: 16199798
Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2010 Summer;34(1):7-13
pubmed: 20615839
Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261-76
pubmed: 3616518
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Schizophr Res. 2005 Nov 15;79(2-3):231-8
pubmed: 15982856
Psychol Med. 2009 Jun;39(6):881-7
pubmed: 18845010
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1283-93
pubmed: 21839614
BJPsych Open. 2017 May 4;3(3):113-119
pubmed: 28507770
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;187:379-85
pubmed: 16199799
Schizophr Bull. 2016 May;42(3):652-65
pubmed: 26519952
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Jul;209(1):23-8
pubmed: 27198483

Auteurs

David T Turner (DT)

Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Angus MacBeth (A)

Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Amanda Larkin (A)

Psychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.

Steffen Moritz (S)

Working Group on Clinical Neuropsychology, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Karen Livingstone (K)

Clinical Psychology, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Glasgow, UK.

Alison Campbell (A)

Clinical Psychology, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, Glasgow, UK.

Paul Hutton (P)

School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH