Social recovery therapy, early intervention ‘superior’ in first-episode psychosis

Adding social recovery therapy to early intervention services significantly improved social function, compared with early intervention alone for young first-episode psychosis patients with extreme social withdrawal, according to data from 155 patients.

“New interventions targeting functional and social recovery are needed in people with first-episode psychosis,” wrote David Fowler of the psychology department at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, and his colleagues.

In a study known as SUPEREDEN3, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, the researchers randomized 76 patients aged 16-35 years to social recovery therapy plus early intervention and 79 to early intervention alone. The study participants were selected between Oct. 1, 2012, and June 20, 2014, and suffered from extreme social withdrawal as well as complex comorbidities, including anxiety and depression, hopelessness, and residual and treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms.

The social recovery therapy, delivered in three stages, included working with the patients to identify new activities and to get them engaged in those pursuits. “Therapists adopt an assertive outreach style of contact, most frequently visiting people at home or in community settings,” the researchers wrote. “Therapists are also encouraged to work systematically with family members, employers, and educational providers to discuss and overcome potential problems that could impede social recovery.”

After 9 months, the social recovery group averaged 8 more hours of structured activity compared with the control group in an intent-to-treat analysis. Structured activity was defined as time spent over the previous month on activities, including work, education, volunteering, leisure activities, sports, housework or other chores, and child care. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported.

“Our findings show that social recovery therapy plus early intervention services is superior to early intervention services alone on the primary outcome of time spent in structured activity,” Mr. Fowler and his colleagues wrote.

The findings were limited by the lack of data from secondary outcomes, in part because of the challenges of following up with a withdrawn study population, the researchers said. However, they said, the study is the first to show benefits of social recovery therapy in this challenging group.

The results offer “encouragement for practitioners in early intervention services to focus on this subgroup who are often neglected. Our results also suggest that social recovery therapy techniques could be a useful addition in this group,” the researchers said.

The National Institute for Health Research funded the study. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Fowler D et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;5(1):41-50.

Adding social recovery therapy to early intervention services significantly improved social function, compared with early intervention alone for young first-episode psychosis patients with extreme social withdrawal, according to data from 155 patients.

“New interventions targeting functional and social recovery are needed in people with first-episode psychosis,” wrote David Fowler of the psychology department at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, and his colleagues.

In a study known as SUPEREDEN3, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, the researchers randomized 76 patients aged 16-35 years to social recovery therapy plus early intervention and 79 to early intervention alone. The study participants were selected between Oct. 1, 2012, and June 20, 2014, and suffered from extreme social withdrawal as well as complex comorbidities, including anxiety and depression, hopelessness, and residual and treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms.

The social recovery therapy, delivered in three stages, included working with the patients to identify new activities and to get them engaged in those pursuits. “Therapists adopt an assertive outreach style of contact, most frequently visiting people at home or in community settings,” the researchers wrote. “Therapists are also encouraged to work systematically with family members, employers, and educational providers to discuss and overcome potential problems that could impede social recovery.”

After 9 months, the social recovery group averaged 8 more hours of structured activity compared with the control group in an intent-to-treat analysis. Structured activity was defined as time spent over the previous month on activities, including work, education, volunteering, leisure activities, sports, housework or other chores, and child care. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported.

“Our findings show that social recovery therapy plus early intervention services is superior to early intervention services alone on the primary outcome of time spent in structured activity,” Mr. Fowler and his colleagues wrote.

The findings were limited by the lack of data from secondary outcomes, in part because of the challenges of following up with a withdrawn study population, the researchers said. However, they said, the study is the first to show benefits of social recovery therapy in this challenging group.

The results offer “encouragement for practitioners in early intervention services to focus on this subgroup who are often neglected. Our results also suggest that social recovery therapy techniques could be a useful addition in this group,” the researchers said.

The National Institute for Health Research funded the study. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Fowler D et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;5(1):41-50.

Adding social recovery therapy to early intervention services significantly improved social function, compared with early intervention alone for young first-episode psychosis patients with extreme social withdrawal, according to data from 155 patients.

“New interventions targeting functional and social recovery are needed in people with first-episode psychosis,” wrote David Fowler of the psychology department at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, and his colleagues.

In a study known as SUPEREDEN3, published in The Lancet Psychiatry, the researchers randomized 76 patients aged 16-35 years to social recovery therapy plus early intervention and 79 to early intervention alone. The study participants were selected between Oct. 1, 2012, and June 20, 2014, and suffered from extreme social withdrawal as well as complex comorbidities, including anxiety and depression, hopelessness, and residual and treatment-resistant positive psychotic symptoms.

The social recovery therapy, delivered in three stages, included working with the patients to identify new activities and to get them engaged in those pursuits. “Therapists adopt an assertive outreach style of contact, most frequently visiting people at home or in community settings,” the researchers wrote. “Therapists are also encouraged to work systematically with family members, employers, and educational providers to discuss and overcome potential problems that could impede social recovery.”

After 9 months, the social recovery group averaged 8 more hours of structured activity compared with the control group in an intent-to-treat analysis. Structured activity was defined as time spent over the previous month on activities, including work, education, volunteering, leisure activities, sports, housework or other chores, and child care. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported.

“Our findings show that social recovery therapy plus early intervention services is superior to early intervention services alone on the primary outcome of time spent in structured activity,” Mr. Fowler and his colleagues wrote.

The findings were limited by the lack of data from secondary outcomes, in part because of the challenges of following up with a withdrawn study population, the researchers said. However, they said, the study is the first to show benefits of social recovery therapy in this challenging group.

The results offer “encouragement for practitioners in early intervention services to focus on this subgroup who are often neglected. Our results also suggest that social recovery therapy techniques could be a useful addition in this group,” the researchers said.

The National Institute for Health Research funded the study. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Fowler D et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;5(1):41-50.