Despite the increasing evidence base and focus given to Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) services, qualitative literature remains sparse, particularly in relation to the ‘At Risk Mental State’ (ARMS) group. Although research has looked to service user experience within EIP, data have not been collated to understand valued aspects of treatment across both EIP groups: first episode psychosis (FEP) and ARMS, particularly regarding cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT).

To conduct a systematic review of qualitative literature to examine service user perspectives on support provided in EIP treatment with a focus on CBT.

This was a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Nine studies were included in the analysis identified through a systematic database search and citation tracking. Studies were critically appraised using the critical appraisal skills programme tool.

Nine studies were identified for inclusion. Six analytical themes and 20 descriptive categories were identified.

User perspectives confirm previous findings highlighting importance of therapeutic relationships for treatment success. Normalisation, learning and understanding were valued across both groups, which increased coping, and can be facilitated throughout the EIP journey. Harnessing the support of those involved in users’ care and understanding these relationships further enhances interventions utilised. Understanding the stage the individual is at regarding their experiences is essential in relation to targeting support. Transdiagnostic aspects of CBT were valued across both groups. ARMS referred to more specific strategies and there were some differences regarding coping styles and flexibility preferences; however, this may be due to group differences in problem trajectory and care provision.

Self-monitoring biases and overconfidence in incorrect judgments have been suggested as playing a role in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Little is known about whether self-monitoring biases may contribute to early risk factors for psychosis. In this study, action self-monitoring (i.e., discrimination between imagined and performed actions) was investigated, along with confidence in judgments among ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis individuals and first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients.

Thirty-six UHR for psychosis individuals, 25 FEP patients and 33 healthy controls (CON) participated in the study. Participants were assessed with the Action memory task. Simple actions were presented to participants verbally or non-verbally. Some actions were required to be physically performed and others were imagined. Participants were asked whether the action was presented verbally or non-verbally (action presentation type discrimination), and whether the action was performed or imagined (self-monitoring). Confidence self-ratings related to self-monitoring responses were obtained.

The analysis of self-monitoring revealed that both UHR and FEP groups misattributed imagined actions as being performed (i.e., self-monitoring errors) significantly more often than the CON group. There were no differences regarding performed actions as being imagined. UHR and FEP groups made their false responses with higher confidence in their judgments than the CON group. There were no group differences regarding discrimination between the types of actions presented (verbal vs non-verbal).

A specific type of self-monitoring bias (i.e., misattributing imagined actions with performed actions), accompanied by high confidence in this judgment, may be a risk factor for the subsequent development of a psychotic disorder.

In the 1990s criteria were developed to detect individuals at high and imminent risk of developing a psychotic disorder. These are known as the at risk mental state, ultra high risk or clinical high risk criteria. Individuals meeting these criteria are symptomatic and help-seeking. Services for such individuals are now found worldwide. Recently Psychological Medicine published two articles that criticise these services and suggest that they should be dismantled or restructured. One paper also provides recommendations on how ARMS services should be operate.

In this paper we draw on the existing literature in the field and present the perspective of some ARMS clinicians and researchers.

Many of the critics' arguments are refuted. Most of the recommendations included in the Moritz et al. paper are already occurring.

ARMS services provide management of current problems, treatment to reduce risk of onset of psychotic disorder and monitoring of mental state, including attenuated psychotic symptoms. These symptoms are associated with a range of poor outcomes. It is important to assess them and track their trajectory over time. A new approach to detection of ARMS individuals can be considered that harnesses broad youth mental health services, such as headspace in Australia, Jigsaw in Ireland and ACCESS Open Minds in Canada. Attention should also be paid to the physical health of ARMS individuals. Far from needing to be dismantled we feel that the ARMS approach has much to offer to improve the health of young people.

After reading this article you will be able to:

• • recognise signs and symptoms indicating increased psychosis risk

• • understand uses and limitations of screening for high psychosis risk, and interpretation of results

• • recognise evidence-based treatment options for patients at clinical high risk for psychosis.

C.A. has received non-financial support from Sunovion and Lundbeck in the past 36 months.

Paranoia is one of the commonest symptoms of psychosis but has rarely been studied in a population at risk of developing psychosis. Based on existing theoretical models, including the proposed distinction between ‘poor me’ and ‘bad me’ paranoia, we aimed to test specific predictions about associations between negative cognition, metacognitive beliefs and negative emotions and paranoid ideation and the belief that persecution is deserved (deservedness).

We used data from 117 participants from the Early Detection and Intervention Evaluation for people at risk of psychosis (EDIE-2) trial of cognitive–behaviour therapy, comparing them with samples of psychiatric in-patients and healthy students from a previous study. Multi-level modelling was utilized to examine predictors of both paranoia and deservedness, with post-hoc planned comparisons conducted to test whether person-level predictor variables were associated differentially with paranoia or with deservedness.

Our sample of at-risk mental state participants was not as paranoid, but reported higher levels of ‘bad-me’ deservedness, compared with psychiatric in-patients. We found several predictors of paranoia and deservedness. Negative beliefs about self were related to deservedness but not paranoia, whereas negative beliefs about others were positively related to paranoia but negatively with deservedness. Both depression and negative metacognitive beliefs about paranoid thinking were specifically related to paranoia but not deservedness.

This study provides evidence for the role of negative cognition, metacognition and negative affect in the development of paranoid beliefs, which has implications for psychological interventions and our understanding of psychosis.

Ethnicity has been associated with different incidence rates and different symptom profiles in young patients with psychotic-like disorders. No studies so far have examined the effect of ethnicity on symptoms in people with an At Risk Mental State (ARMS).

In this cross-sectional study, we analysed the relationship between ethnicity and baseline data on the severity of psychopathology scores in 201 help-seeking patients who met the ARMS criteria and agreed to participate in the Dutch Early Detection and Intervention (EDIE-NL) trial. Eighty-seven of these patients had a non-Dutch ethnicity. We explored the possible mediating role of ethnic identity.

Higher rates of negative symptoms, and of anhedonia in particular, were found in the ethnic minority group. This result could be attributed mainly to the Moroccan-Dutch and Turkish-Dutch subgroups, who also presented with more depression symptoms when the groups were examined separately. The ethnic minority group displayed a lower level of ethnic group identity compared to the immigrants of the International Comparative Study of Ethnocultural Youth (ICSEY). Ethnic identity was inversely related to symptoms in the Moroccan-Dutch patient group.

The prevalence of more severe negative symptoms and depression symptoms in ethnic minority groups deserves more attention, as the experience of attenuated positive symptoms when accompanied by negative symptoms or distress has proven to be predictive for transition to a first psychotic episode.

Current psychological models of psychotic symptoms suggest that metacognitive beliefs impact on an individual's appraisal of anomalous experiences, and thereby influence whether these lead to distress and become clinical symptoms. This study examined the relationship between maladaptive metacognitive beliefs, anomalous experiences, anomaly-related distress, anxiety and depression and diagnostic status.

The Metacognitions Questionnaire (MCQ), Symptom Checklist 90 – Revised, and Appraisals of Anomalous Experiences interview were administered to 27 people diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, 32 people meeting At Risk Mental State (ARMS) criteria, 24 people with psychotic-like experiences but no need for care, and 32 healthy volunteers.

The two clinical groups scored higher than non-patient controls and individuals experiencing psychotic-like anomalies with no need for care on most subscales of the MCQ, particularly the ‘general negative beliefs about thoughts’ (NEG) subscale. However, most group differences became non-significant when anxiety and depression were controlled for. Few relationships were found between the MCQ subscales and psychotic-like anomalies and anomaly-related distress. Cognitive/attentional difficulty was the only type of anomaly to be significantly associated with maladaptive metacognitive beliefs. Anomaly-related distress was associated with only the NEG subscale of the MCQ.

Maladaptive metacognitive beliefs, as measured by the MCQ, appear to be related more to elevated levels of general psychopathology in psychotic and at-risk groups than to the presence of, and distress associated with, psychotic experiences. Processes by which metacognitions may impact upon the need for care are discussed.