The effectiveness of narrative enhancement and cognitive therapy: a randomized controlled study of a self-stigma intervention

Although recent anti-stigma programs have shown small to moderate effects [1, 2], it is still not clear whether these have a lasting impact [3]. Public stigma against people with mental illness is, therefore, still highly prevalent and the main conclusion is that it has not diminished during the last decades [4]. Stigma has been proposed to be perhaps the most serious obstacle to a successful treatment, rehabilitation, and inclusion of people with mental illnesses in society. Unemployment, income loss [5], not seeking care or delayed care [6] a diminished social network [7, 8], impaired self-esteem [9], isolation and loneliness have been associated with stigma and discrimination. Stigma also affects disease progression and recovery [10].

The generally expanding scientific literature on mental illness stigma has so far no correspondence in studies on discrimination and self-stigma, where there still is a dearth of studies. Discrimination deals with people’s behaviour as captured by observational studies, by studies of structural discrimination, for example related to the judicial system, or by studies focusing on the experiences of people with mental illness. The INDIGO study (International Study of Discrimination and Stigma Outcomes) performed a quantitative cross-sectional study of people with schizophrenia covering 27 countries which showed that perceived discrimination was common in a number of areas and most prevalent in areas of making or keeping friends, family members, and in finding and keeping a job [11]. A majority of the participants also reported anticipated discrimination in applying for work/education and making close relationships. Almost 75% of the participants concealed their diagnosis to their social network. A further study from the INDIGO/ASPEN groups focusing discrimination in people with depression including 1082 people also showed that perceived discrimination was common, reporting that 79% had perceived discrimination in at least one area. This study also showed that anticipated discrimination was not always associated with actually perceived discrimination, almost half of the people reporting anticipated discrimination regarding finding and keeping a job or in their intimate relationships actually did not report any perceived discrimination in these areas [12]. The GAMIAN study (Global Alliance of Mental Illness Advocacy Networks study) made a similar cross-country survey including people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder [13, 14]. This study focused more on perceived anticipated stigma and self-stigma. They reported, for both conditions, that a majority had moderate or high perceived discrimination, that almost half of people with schizophrenia reported moderate or high levels of self-stigma, and that the equivalent figure for people with bipolar disorders was around one-fifth of the participants.

The internalisation of negative stereotypes about mental illness occurs early in life and may lead to the development of self-stigma for people afflicted by mental illness later on in life. Self-stigma (or internalized or felt stigma) exists on the individual level and indicates that the individual endorses stereotypes of mental illness, finds these stereotypes relevant and anticipates social rejection [15]. Self-stigma is highly prevalent in people with longstanding and severe mental illness; a review of studies investigating the prevalence of elevated levels of self-stigma [16] showed prevalence rates in the range of 27–49%. Self-stigma may also be a response to actual experiences of public stigma and discriminatory behaviour, which could result in consequences in a number of psychosocial life aspects: refraining from applying for work, avoiding contact with mental health care and social contacts [17, 18]. In a review by Gulliver and colleagues [19] public stigma and self-stigma was found to be the two most important perceived barriers for people with mental health issues to actually seek help. The review by Livingstone and Boyd [18] draws attention to the fact that, while there is a rather vast scientific literature on self-stigma and its correlates, there is a lack of studies with a longitudinal design which may have increased the clinical value of this literature and increased opportunities to develop and engage in research focusing interventions to cope with self-stigma.

Despite the substantial evidence for the negative effects of self-stigma, the development of interventions to decrease self-stigma is a relatively new area of research. A recent review of self-stigma reduction interventions included 14 studies, of which eight reported significant improvements in self-stigma outcomes [20]. Six self-stigma reduction strategies were identified of which psychoeducation was the most frequently tested type of intervention. Two prominent approaches for self-stigma reduction emerged: interventions that attempt to alter the stigmatizing beliefs and attitudes of the individual; and interventions that enhance skills for coping with self-stigma through improvements in self-esteem, empowerment, and help-seeking behaviour. A further review by Yanos et al. showed similar results [21]. They conclude that several interventions show a positive impact and that several interventions are in the process of rigorous studies, including larger RCT’s. However, outcome and implementation research is clearly in early stages; further evaluation is needed to understand the potential of many programs.

One of the interventions included in the Mittal review was the narrative enhancement and cognitive therapy intervention (NECT) [22]. It is a rather comprehensive intervention which is attractive since it includes both the major approaches that emerged from the Mittal et al. review, and in addition a module aiming at changing the person´s self-concept. Although NECT seems to be a comparatively promising intervention in terms of its evidence-base there are so far a few investigations focusing outcome of NECT. Qualitative analyses of interviews conducted with 18 NECT completers showed that they perceived NECT as helpful. Six domains of improvement were revealed which participants attributed to participating in the intervention: experiential learning, positive change in experience of self, acquiring cognitive skills, enhanced hope, and coping and emotional change [23]. A small RCT has also been performed [24], 39 persons with SMI were randomized to NECT or to treatment as usual and were assessed at baseline, post treatment, and at a 3-month follow-up. Fifteen of the 21 individuals assigned to NECT were classified as “exposed” to treatment and, compared to unexposed participants, improved more in two aspects of self-stigma as well as insight; however, the small sample size and significant dropout rates restricted the ability to detect an effect. A quasi-experimental study involving 109 persons with severe mental illness revealed that the NECT group showed significant reductions in self-stigma and improvements in self-esteem, quality of life and hope between pre- and post-treatment assessments, compared with the control group [25]. A non-controlled pilot study, performed as part of the implementation of NECT in Sweden, showed a decrease of self-stigma and improvements in self-esteem and quality of life [26].

So far no randomized controlled trial using a sample with sufficient power to investigate the effectiveness of NECT has been performed. Based on the positive results of the Swedish pilot study the aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of NECT in reducing self-stigma and improving self-esteem and subjective quality of life.

Analyses of the pre-post intervention changes showed that the intervention group improved significantly more than the control group in the primary outcome measure self-stigma (ES = 0.5). There were also significant differences between the groups in favour of the intervention group in three of the subscales of SSMIS-SF, Awareness, Agreement and Application, but not in the subscale measuring Harm to the self, Table 2. There were also a significant improvement in self-esteem in the intervention group as compared to the control group (ES = 0.5) but no difference with regard to quality of life, although there was a tendency in favour of the intervention group (p = 0.09), Table 3.

A 6 month after termination of the intervention follow-up was also performed. Comparisons between baseline and follow-up showed significant improvements in self-stigma and self-esteem but no changes in quality of life, indicating that improvements at termination of intervention were stable over the follow-up period, Table 4. There were no significant changes between termination of intervention and follow-up in any of the measures.

Mean number of sessions attended for those remaining in the intervention group at termination (N = 41) was 14 (range 4–20). To explore whether exposure to the intervention in terms of number of sessions attended was related to outcome, correlations between number of sessions and changes in self-stigma were performed. The covariation between exposure and changes in self-stigma was substantial (r = 0.49; p = 0.001), indicating an explained variance of changes in self-stigma of around 25%. To further explore this we performed a stepwise regression analysis using ratings of self-stigma at termination of intervention as dependent variable and controlling for self-stigma at baseline and the clinical background variables number of years in contact with mental health services, number of inpatient episodes and history of involuntary care or not. This analysis showed that the two variables entering the model were self-stigma at baseline (t = 3.07; p = 0.004), explaining 14.1% of the variance in self-stigma at termination, and exposure (t = 4.20; p = 0.001), explaining a further 30.6% of the variance.

We have earlier performed an open trial of NECT in Sweden, not including any control group [23]. A conclusion from this study, on background of the encouraging results, was that the next step would be to set up an RCT to more adequately evaluate the effectiveness of NECT. In the present study, we included 106 participants, based on a power analysis relying on the results from the earlier open trial. Of these 87 remained in the study at termination of the intervention period, giving a reasonable attrition rate of 18%. Interviews with the drop-outs showed that rather few referred to negative aspects of the intervention as reason for withdrawal. The vast majority referred to various practical circumstances as reason for not attending the group sessions. A drop-out analysis also showed that the drop-outs did not differ from those remaining with regard to background characteristics or baseline assessments of outcome measures. Furthermore, we did not detect any baseline differences between the intervention and control group regarding background characteristics or outcome measures. We may, therefore, assume that completers constitute a group fairly representative for the included sample.

This is the so far largest RCT performed of NECT. The main results were that NECT was effective in reducing self-stigma and improving self-esteem in comparisons with the control group, in both cases with lower end moderate effect-sizes. The only exception regarding self-stigma was the subscale “harm to self” were no difference was found. The main reason for this may be that this subscale, according to Corrigan’s model [27], rates the most severe and invasive consequences of self-stigma, and thus probably is the hardest to change since it indicates the most severe damage to a person’s self-concept. Furthermore, these effects seem stable over a 6-month follow-up period after the termination of intervention. These results are in contrast with the only former RCT performed, which showed no superiority of NECT versus treatment as usual only [24]. However, this study was underpowered which may be part of the explanation for this difference. The reason for no difference regarding quality of life may have a number of reasons including the intervention not specifically targeting subjective quality of life or the way we assessed quality of life, but may also more generally reflect that quality of life in many community mental health intervention studies have not shown to be a sensitive outcome measure [33].

An interesting question is if any dose–response relationships exist. Findings from our earlier pilot study [26] indicated this, as well as did the RCT study by Yanos et al. [24]. These findings were verified by the present study, which showed a distinct relationship between number of sessions attended and improvements in self-stigma and self-esteem. A further regression analysis revealed that this was not due to any potential confounders such as various aspects of severity of illness. This finding puts attention to the importance of creating a group climate which facilitate and encourage participation through the various phases of the intervention. This is also corroborated by the results from a qualitative study of NECT [23] where completers of NECT assigned helpfulness to various domains of the intervention.

A limitation of the present study is that not all patients fulfilling inclusion criteria could be included in the study due to the limitations in the number of NECT groups able to manage by the service. We have no information of whether there is a possible bias between those informed and giving consent and those not asked for participation. The information given to clinical staff was that inclusion should be made on a “first come first serve basis”. Comparisons between all patients fulfilling inclusion criteria and those included did, however, not show any significant differences with regard to the level of self-stigma. We, therefore, tentatively assume that study participants are representative for those fulfilling inclusion criteria. A further limitation is that we do not have consistent information about the number of patients who were asked for participation but refused; they are included in the number not asked for participation.

The conclusion of the present study is that, using a sample size with adequate power, NECT seems to be an effective intervention with regard to diminishing self-stigma and improving self-esteem, but did not show any improvement in subjective quality of life. The sample used in the study had a rather long duration of illness. Analysis of the correlations between outcome regarding self-stigma and duration of illness showed that they were low and non-significant. We, therefore, aim to set up an RCT including only first episode psychosis patients to test the hypothesis that NECT is effective in this group. If this hypothesis will be verified NECT may be used in first episode psychosis services to prevent or diminish the long standing negative and serious consequences of self-stigma.