Cognitively oriented psychotherapy for early psychosis (COPE): A 1-year follow-up

• Published in: British journal of clinical psychology 2001-03, Vol.40 (1), p.57-70
• Main Authors: Jackson, Henry, McGorry, Pat, Henry, Lisa, Edwards, Jane, Hulbert, Carol, Harrigan, Susy, Dudgeon, Paul, Francey, Shona, Maude, Dana, Cocks, John, Power, Paddy
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Behavior therapy. Cognitive therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Clinical psychology; Cognitive Therapy - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Medical treatment; Mental health; Pilot Projects; Psychology; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Psychoses; Psychosis; Psychotherapy; Psychotic Disorders - diagnosis; Psychotic Disorders - etiology; Psychotic Disorders - therapy; Recurrence; Therapy; Treatments
• ISSN: 0144-6657; 2044-8260
• DOI: 10.1348/014466501163481

Objectives. Cognitively oriented psychotherapy for early psychosis (COPE) is aimed at facilitating the adjustment of the person, and at preventing or alleviating secondary morbidity in the wake of the first psychotic episode. Design. A total of 80 people participated in the initial trial and completed assessments on a range of outcome measures. Post‐treatment assessment results from a non‐randomized controlled trial of COPE have been previously reported. The present paper describes the results obtained from 51 patients who attended a follow‐up assessment 1 year subsequent to the end‐of‐treatment assessment. Method. The 51 patients formed three groups: (1) those who were offered and accepted COPE; (2) those who were offered COPE but refused it, and continued to receive other services from the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) (refusal subjects); and (3) those who were offered neither COPE nor any other continuing treatment from EPPIC (control subjects). Results. At 1‐year follow‐up, there was only one significant difference and this was between the COPE and refusal groups on the Integration/Sealing Over (I/SO) measure (p = .008). End‐of‐treatment differences were mostly sustained over the 1‐year follow‐up period. When the complete sample of 80 was considered, there were no differences between the three groups in terms of hospital admissions, community episodes, or time taken to first in‐patient re‐admission. Conclusions. The study was weakened by the poor follow‐up rates in the two control groups. This reduced power to detect differences between groups on the seven major measures. However, the relapse data gathered on the complete set of 80 patients were discouraging and suggest that the present formulation of COPE does not confer any advantage to those patients receiving the therapy over those not receiving the therapy.