↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care for persistent aggressive behaviour or agitation in people with schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Cognitive behavioural therapy plus standard care versus standard care for persistent aggressive behaviour or agitation in people with schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013511.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Javier Ballesteros, Maria Concepcion Moreno-Calvete, Borja Santos-Zorrozúa, Eduardo González-Fraile

Abstract

Schizophrenia and other psychoses are thought to be associated with a substantial increase in aggressive behaviour, violence and violent offending. However, acts of aggression or violence committed by people with severe mental illness are rare and circumscribed to a small minority of individuals. We know little about the frequency and variability of violent episodes for people with schizophrenia who present chronic or recurrent aggressive episodes, and of available interventions to reduce such problems. A psychological intervention, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), aims to challenge dysfunctional thoughts and has been used since the mid-1970s to improve mental health and emotional disorders. CBT includes different interventional procedures, such as cognitive therapy, elements of behavioural therapy, problem-solving interventions, and coping skills training, among others. Although CBT presents much diversity, interventions are characteristically problem-focused, goal-directed, future-oriented, time-limited (about 12 to 20 sessions over four to six months), and empirically based. CBT has shown clinically beneficial effects in persistent positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia and its use as an add-on therapy to medication in the treatment of schizophrenia is supported by treatment guidelines. However, several Cochrane Reviews recently concluded that, due to the low quality of evidence available, no firm conclusions can currently be made regarding the effectiveness of adding CBT to standard care for people with schizophrenia, or about CBT compared to other psychosocial treatments for people with schizophrenia. Whereas CBT is not an emergency or crisis intervention that acts immediately on the known or unknown triggers underlying aggressive behaviour, might be a timely treatment used to manage persistent aggression or repeated aggressive episodes in people with schizophrenia. To assess the efficacy and safety of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standard care versus standard care alone for people with schizophrenia and persistent aggression. On 18 January 2023, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. We also inspected references of all identified studies for more studies. All randomised controlled trials comparing CBT plus standard care with standard care alone for people with schizophrenia and persistent aggression. We independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated mean differences (MD) and their 95%CIs for outcomes reported with the same measurement scale. Post hoc, for counts over person-time outcomes, we calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and their 95%CIs. If feasible, we combined study outcomes with the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias for included studies and created a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. We included two studies with 184 participants with psychotic disorder (mainly schizophrenia) and violence. The studies were run in forensic units and prison. Both studies were at high risk of bias on blinding (performance and detection bias). CBT plus standard care as compared with standard care may result in little to no difference in the frequency of physical violence at end of trial (IRR 0.52; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.18) and follow-up (IRR 0.86; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.68). The confidence interval did not exclude the null effect, and the certainty of the evidence is very low due to lack of blinding and to the small sample size. One study reported no deaths in both arms and zero serious and other adverse events. The other study did not report any figure for deaths or adverse events. CBT plus standard care as compared with standard care may result in little to no difference in leaving the study early for any reason (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.53 to 2.00). Confidence interval did not exclude the null effect and the certainty of the evidence is low due to lack of blinding and the small sample size. Whereas the evidence from only two studies with 184 participants suggests the use of CBT plus standard care may reduce some aggressive behaviours in patients with schizophrenia, the grading of the certainty of the evidence is very low. It implies that there is not yet reliable evidence to guide clinical decisions and therefore more evidence is needed to get a more precise estimate of the effect of the intervention. Currently, we have very little confidence in the effect estimate, and the true effect could be substantially different from its estimate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 26 51%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Lecturer 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Master 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 3 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 27 53%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 20%
Psychology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 3 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2023.
All research outputs
#6,963,460
of 24,876,519 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,653
of 12,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,632
of 343,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#91
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,876,519 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.