View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.
Authors: Hogg, Lorna I., Smith, Laura G. E., Haslam, Catherine, Coxhill, Lyndsay, Kurz, Tim, Hobden, Georgina, Morrison, Anthony P.
Source: Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice. Jun2025, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p478-500. 23p.
Subjects: Empathy, Research funding, Group identity, Pilot projects, Statistical sampling, Group psychotherapy, Loneliness, Treatment effectiveness, Randomized controlled trials, Attitude (Psychology), Social integration, Research methodology, Psychoses, Comparative studies, Well-being, Social stigma, Psychosocial factors
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
Abstract: Objectives: Loneliness in people who experience psychosis is common and associated with poor mental health. In this randomised trial, we tested the feasibility and acceptability of an adapted Groups for Health (G4H) intervention for loneliness, delivered in group or individual format. Design: Mixed methods, two‐arm feasibility randomised controlled trial. Methods: Forty individuals who self‐identified as having psychosis were recruited from UK mental health care services, recovery colleges and charities. G4H was modified for people with psychosis, with participants randomised to receive the intervention delivered via group (N = 20) or individual (N = 20) format. The primary outcomes related to trial acceptability and feasibility. Exploratory repeated measures ANOVAs and t‐tests evaluated differences between formats over time in loneliness, wellbeing and possible mechanisms of change including social identification, identity integration and perceived in‐group and out‐group empathy. Measures were completed at baseline, end of treatment and 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up. Results: Recruitment, retention and trial acceptability ratings for both group and individual formats of G4H were acceptable to good. No participants reported experiencing a serious adverse event. Exploratory ANOVAs indicated no differences related to format but positive change in key variables of loneliness, wellbeing, social identification and identity integration over time. T‐tests for loneliness indicated that this change was step‐wise from baseline, through end of treatment to 1‐month follow‐up. Conclusions: G4H is a feasible intervention for people with psychosis who identify as lonely and it can be delivered in either group or individual formats. This feasibility trial provides support for a future full randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 185068556
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hogg%2C+Lorna+I%2E%22">Hogg, Lorna I.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Smith%2C+Laura+G%2E+E%2E%22">Smith, Laura G. E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Haslam%2C+Catherine%22">Haslam, Catherine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Coxhill%2C+Lyndsay%22">Coxhill, Lyndsay</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kurz%2C+Tim%22">Kurz, Tim</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hobden%2C+Georgina%22">Hobden, Georgina</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Morrison%2C+Anthony+P%2E%22">Morrison, Anthony P.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Psychology+%26+Psychotherapy%3A+Theory%2C+Research+%26+Practice%22">Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice</searchLink>. Jun2025, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p478-500. 23p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Empathy%22">Empathy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+funding%22">Research funding</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+identity%22">Group identity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pilot+projects%22">Pilot projects</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+sampling%22">Statistical sampling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+psychotherapy%22">Group psychotherapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Loneliness%22">Loneliness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Treatment+effectiveness%22">Treatment effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Randomized+controlled+trials%22">Randomized controlled trials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+%28Psychology%29%22">Attitude (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+integration%22">Social integration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychoses%22">Psychoses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+studies%22">Comparative studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well-being%22">Well-being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+stigma%22">Social stigma</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychosocial+factors%22">Psychosocial factors</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectGeographic
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objectives: Loneliness in people who experience psychosis is common and associated with poor mental health. In this randomised trial, we tested the feasibility and acceptability of an adapted Groups for Health (G4H) intervention for loneliness, delivered in group or individual format. Design: Mixed methods, two‐arm feasibility randomised controlled trial. Methods: Forty individuals who self‐identified as having psychosis were recruited from UK mental health care services, recovery colleges and charities. G4H was modified for people with psychosis, with participants randomised to receive the intervention delivered via group (N = 20) or individual (N = 20) format. The primary outcomes related to trial acceptability and feasibility. Exploratory repeated measures ANOVAs and t‐tests evaluated differences between formats over time in loneliness, wellbeing and possible mechanisms of change including social identification, identity integration and perceived in‐group and out‐group empathy. Measures were completed at baseline, end of treatment and 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up. Results: Recruitment, retention and trial acceptability ratings for both group and individual formats of G4H were acceptable to good. No participants reported experiencing a serious adverse event. Exploratory ANOVAs indicated no differences related to format but positive change in key variables of loneliness, wellbeing, social identification and identity integration over time. T‐tests for loneliness indicated that this change was step‐wise from baseline, through end of treatment to 1‐month follow‐up. Conclusions: G4H is a feasible intervention for people with psychosis who identify as lonely and it can be delivered in either group or individual formats. This feasibility trial provides support for a future full randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=185068556
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/papt.12574
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 478
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Empathy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research funding
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group identity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pilot projects
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical sampling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group psychotherapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Loneliness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Treatment effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Randomized controlled trials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychoses
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well-being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social stigma
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychosocial factors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A randomised feasibility trial comparing group and individual format GROUPS FOR HEALTH interventions for loneliness in people who experience psychosis.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hogg, Lorna I.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Smith, Laura G. E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Haslam, Catherine
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Coxhill, Lyndsay
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kurz, Tim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hobden, Georgina
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Morrison, Anthony P.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Text: Jun2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 14760835
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 98
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology & Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1