Evaluation of CBT.
Work with those that don't respond to other treatments. ✅
Research support. ✅
Research support ✅
Fewer side effects. ✅
CBT patients suffer from fewer hallucinations and delusions. ✅
Also recover to a higher degree ✅
Drury et al (1996).
25-50% reduction in recovery time. ✅
When using both drugs and CBT.
Terrier et al (2000)
Over 20 sessions with drugs along with 4 booster sessions across the year made more significant improvement than drugs alone. ✅
Kiupers et al (1997)
Lower drop out rates and higher satisfaction with CBT and drugs. ✅
When used together, both treatments considered more effective. ✅
Sensky et al (2000).
CBT effective in treating patients not responding to drugs. ✅
Continued to improve 9 months after treatment had ended.
Shows positive effect was also long lasting. ✅
Not at risk of other illness such as diabetes. ✅
However, more expensive and costly. ❌
May not be readily available. ❌
Insurance may not cover it. ❌
Requires full involvement of patient. ❌
Only 1 in 10 offered in the UK ❌
Some psychiatrists believe Sz may not benefit from it. ❌
May not be appropriate for all patients ❌
Kingdon et al. (2006).
142 in Hampshire.
Many not suitable for CBT . ❌
Won't engage with therapy. ❌
Older patients less suitable than older patients. ❌
Too disorientated, agitated, paranoid to trust therapists ❌
Research into effectiveness is criticised. ❌
Meta-analysis of 50 studies of CBT
Only small effect on symptoms, including positive ones. ❌
Positive symptoms is what it aims to target. ❌