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. ❌