Defence behaviours – actions carried out to reduce perceived threat – are an important maintenance factor for persecutory delusions. Avoidance of feared situations and subtle in-situation behaviours reduce opportunities for new learning and are erroneously credited for the non-occurrence of harm; hence inaccurate fears are maintained. In contrast, exposure to feared situations whilst dropping defence behaviours – a key technique of cognitive therapy for paranoia – allows the discovery of new information concerning safety, thereby reducing persecutory delusions.

We aimed to develop for use in research and clinical practice a self-report assessment of paranoia-related defence behaviours.

A 64-item pool was developed from interviews with 106 patients with persecutory delusions, and completed by 53 patients with persecutory delusions, 592 people with elevated paranoia, and 2108 people with low paranoia. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to derive the measure. Reliability and validity were assessed.

Two scales were developed: a 12-item avoidance scale and a 20-item in-situation defences scale. The avoidance scale had three factors (indoor spaces, outdoor spaces, and interactions) with an excellent model fit (CFI=0.98, TLI=0.97, RMSEA=0.04, SRMR=0.027). The in-situation defences scale had a 5-factor model (maintaining safety at home, mitigating risk, staying vigilant, preparing for escape, and keeping a low profile) with a good fit (CFI=0.95, TLI=0.94, RMSEA=0.046, SRMR=0.039). Both scales demonstrated good internal reliability, test–retest reliability, and construct validity.

The Oxford Paranoia Defence Behaviours Questionnaire is a psychometrically robust scale that can assess a key factor in the maintenance of persecutory delusions.

Based on an efficacious face-to-face theory-driven psychological therapy for persecutory delusions in the context of psychosis, we set out to develop a scalable guided 6-month online program. The aim was an intervention that patients can easily access and use, produces large clinical effects, and can be supported by a range of mental health professionals in less contact time than face-to-face therapy. We report here the proof-of-concept testing. At least moderate-sized clinical effects were required to progress to a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

In the 6-month Feeling Safer online program, a certified medical device, patients complete a brief assessment and then are provided with up to 10 modules that match their difficulties. Regular remote meetings with a mental health professional also take place. These may be supplemented by in-person visits. A pre- to post-treatment cohort trial was conducted with 14 patients with persistent persecutory delusions. The primary outcome was the Psychotic Symptoms Rating Scale (PSYRATS)-Delusions.

Satisfaction and usability ratings of the program were high. Very large reductions in persecutory delusions were observed (PSYRATS mean reduction = 7.1, 95% C.I. = 3.4, 10.8, n = 13, Cohen’s d = 3.0). There were large improvements in paranoia, anxiety, depression, agoraphobic distress, psychological wellbeing, meaningful activity, personal recovery, recovering quality of life, and moderate improvements in insomnia, agoraphobic avoidance, and quality of life.

The clinical effects associated with Feeling Safer were very high, comparable to those seen in the evaluations of the face-to-face therapy, and enable progression to an RCT.

Low self-confidence in patients with psychosis is common. This can lead to higher symptom severity, withdrawal from activities, and low psychological well-being. There are effective psychological techniques to improve positive self-beliefs but these are seldom provided in psychosis services. With young people with lived experience of psychosis we developed a scalable automated VR therapy to enhance positive-self beliefs.

The aim was to conduct a proof of concept clinical test of whether the new VR self-confidence therapy (Phoenix) may increase positive self-beliefs and psychological well-being.

Twelve young patients with non-affective psychosis and with low levels of positive self-beliefs participated. Over 6 weeks, patients were provided with a stand-alone VR headset so that they could use Phoenix at home and were offered weekly psychologist meetings. The outcome measures were the Oxford Positive Self Scale (OxPos), Brief Core Schema Scale, and Warwick-Edinburgh Well-being Scale (WEMWBS). Satisfaction, adverse events and side-effects were assessed.

Eleven patients provided outcome data. There were very large end-of-treatment improvements in positive self-beliefs (OxPos mean difference = 32.3; 95% CI: 17.3, 47.3; Cohen’s d=3.0) and psychological well-being (WEMWBS mean difference = 11.2; 95% CI: 8.0, 14.3; Cohen’s d=1.5). Patients rated the quality of the VR therapy as: excellent (n=9), good (n=2), fair (n=0), poor (n=0). An average of 5.3 (SD=1.4) appointments were attended.

Uptake of the VR intervention was high, satisfaction was high, and side-effects extremely few. There were promising indications of large improvements in positive self-beliefs and psychological well-being. A randomized controlled clinical evaluation is warranted.

Developing, elaborating, and consolidating positive views of the self is a plausible route to increased psychological well-being. We set out to provide an assessment of positive self-beliefs that could be used in research and clinical practice.

A non-probability online survey was conducted with 2500 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. Exploratory factor analysis of a 94-item pool – generated with guidance from people with lived experience of mental health difficulties – was conducted to develop the Oxford Positive Self Scale (OxPos). The item pool was further reduced using regularised structural equation modelling (SEM) before confirmatory factor analysis. Optimal cut-off scores were developed using receiver operating characteristic curves. Additional validations were carried out with two further general population cohorts (n = 1399; n = 1693).

A 24-item scale was developed with an excellent model fit [robust χ2 = 995.676; df = 246; CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.951; RMSEA = 0.049 (0.047, 0.052); SRMR = 0.031]. The scale comprises four factors: mastery; strength; enjoyment; and character. SEM indicated that the scale explains 68.6% of variance in psychological well-being. The OxPos score was negatively correlated with depression (r = −0.49), anxious avoidance (r = −0.34), paranoia (r = −0.23), hallucinations (r = −0.20), and negative self-beliefs (r = −0.50), and positively correlated with psychological well-being (r = 0.79), self-esteem (r = 0.67), and positive social comparison (r = 0.72). Internal reliability and test–retest reliability were excellent. Cut-offs by age and gender were generated. A short-form was developed, explaining 96% of the full-scale variance.

The new open access scale provides a psychometrically robust assessment of positive cognitions that are strongly connected to psychological well-being.

Automated virtual reality therapies are being developed to increase access to psychological interventions. We assessed the experience with one such therapy of patients diagnosed with psychosis, including satisfaction, side effects, and positive experiences of access to the technology. We tested whether side effects affected therapy.

In a clinical trial 122 patients diagnosed with psychosis completed baseline measures of psychiatric symptoms, received gameChange VR therapy, and then completed a satisfaction questionnaire, the Oxford-VR Side Effects Checklist, and outcome measures.

79 (65.8%) patients were very satisfied with VR therapy, 37 (30.8%) were mostly satisfied, 3 (2.5%) were indifferent/mildly dissatisfied, and 1 (0.8%) person was quite dissatisfied. The most common side effects were: difficulties concentrating because of thinking about what might be happening in the room (n = 17, 14.2%); lasting headache (n = 10, 8.3%); and the headset causing feelings of panic (n = 9, 7.4%). Side effects formed three factors: difficulties concentrating when wearing a headset, feelings of panic using VR, and worries following VR. The occurrence of side effects was not associated with number of VR sessions, therapy outcomes, or psychiatric symptoms. Difficulties concentrating in VR were associated with slightly lower satisfaction. VR therapy provision and engagement made patients feel: proud (n = 99, 81.8%); valued (n = 97, 80.2%); and optimistic (n = 96, 79.3%).

Patients with psychosis were generally very positive towards the VR therapy, valued having the opportunity to try the technology, and experienced few adverse effects. Side effects did not significantly impact VR therapy. Patient experience of VR is likely to facilitate widespread adoption.

Many patients with mental health disorders become increasingly isolated at home due to anxiety about going outside. A cognitive perspective on this difficulty is that threat cognitions lead to the safety-seeking behavioural response of agoraphobic avoidance.

We sought to develop a brief questionnaire, suitable for research and clinical practice, to assess a wide range of cognitions likely to lead to agoraphobic avoidance. We also included two additional subscales assessing two types of safety-seeking defensive responses: anxious avoidance and within-situation safety behaviours.

198 patients with psychosis and agoraphobic avoidance and 1947 non-clinical individuals completed the item pool and measures of agoraphobic avoidance, generalised anxiety, social anxiety, depression and paranoia. Factor analyses were used to derive the Oxford Cognitions and Defences Questionnaire (O-CDQ).

The O-CDQ consists of three subscales: threat cognitions (14 items), anxious avoidance (11 items), and within-situation safety behaviours (8 items). Separate confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated a good model fit for all subscales. The cognitions subscale was significantly associated with agoraphobic avoidance (r = .672, p < .001), social anxiety (r = .617, p < .001), generalized anxiety (r = .746, p < .001), depression (r = .619, p < .001) and paranoia (r = .655, p < .001). Additionally, both the O-CDQ avoidance (r = .867, p < .001) and within-situation safety behaviours (r = .757, p < .001) subscales were highly correlated with agoraphobic avoidance. The O-CDQ demonstrated excellent internal consistency (cognitions Cronbach’s alpha = .93, avoidance Cronbach’s alpha = .94, within-situation Cronbach’s alpha = .93) and test–re-test reliability (cognitions ICC = 0.88, avoidance ICC = 0.92, within-situation ICC = 0.89).

The O-CDQ, consisting of three separate scales, has excellent psychometric properties and may prove a helpful tool for understanding agoraphobic avoidance across mental health disorders.

Agoraphobic avoidance of everyday situations is a common feature in many mental health disorders. Avoidance can be due to a variety of fears, including concerns about negative social evaluation, panicking, and harm from others. The result is inactivity and isolation. Behavioural avoidance tasks (BATs) provide an objective assessment of avoidance and in situ anxiety but are challenging to administer and lack standardisation. Our aim was to draw on the principles of BATs to develop a self-report measure of agoraphobia symptoms.

The scale was developed with 194 patients with agoraphobia in the context of psychosis, 427 individuals in the general population with high levels of agoraphobia, and 1094 individuals with low levels of agoraphobia. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used. Validity was assessed against a BAT, actigraphy data, and an existing agoraphobia measure. Test–retest reliability was assessed with 264 participants.

An eight-item questionnaire with avoidance and distress response scales was developed. The avoidance and distress scales each had an excellent model fit and reliably assessed agoraphobic symptoms across the severity spectrum. All items were highly discriminative (avoidance: a = 1.24–5.43; distress: a = 1.60–5.48), indicating that small increases in agoraphobic symptoms led to a high probability of item endorsement. The scale demonstrated good internal reliability, test–retest reliability, and validity.

The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale has excellent psychometric properties. Clinical cut-offs and score ranges are provided. This precise assessment tool may help focus attention on the clinically important problem of agoraphobic avoidance.

When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears.

In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January–5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey–injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears.

In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97–2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09–0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups.

Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Cognitive therapies are developed on the principle that specific cognitive appraisals are key determinants in the development and maintenance of mental health disorders. It is likely that particular appraisals of the coronavirus pandemic will have explanatory power for subsequent mental health outcomes in the general public. To enable testing of this hypothesis we developed a questionnaire assessing coronavirus-related cognitions.

12 285 participants completed online a 46-item pool of cognitions about coronavirus and six measures of different mental health problems. The sample was randomly split into derivation and validation samples. Exploratory factor analyses determined the factor structure, selection of items, and model fit in the derivation sample. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) then tested this model in the validation sample. Associations of the questionnaire with mental health outcomes were examined.

The 26-item, seven-factor, Oxford Psychological Investigation of Coronavirus Questionnaire [TOPIC-Q] was developed. CFA demonstrated a good model fit (χ2 = 2108.43, df = 278, p < 0.001, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.950, Tucker−Lewis index (TLI) = 0.942, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.033, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.038). The factors were: cognitions about (1) safety and vulnerability, (2) negative long-term impact, (3) having the virus, (4) spreading the virus, (5) social judgment, (6) negative self, and (7) being targeted. The questionnaire explained significant variance in depression (45.8%), social anxiety (37.3%), agoraphobia (23.2%), paranoia (27.3%), post-traumatic stress disorder (57.1%), and panic disorder (31.4%). Cognitions about negative long-term impact had the greatest explanatory power across disorders.

TOPIC-Q provides a method to assess appraisals of the pandemic, which is likely to prove helpful both in longitudinal studies assessing mental health outcomes and in delivery of psychological therapy.

Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision.

A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September−17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships.

71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: ‘excessive mistrust’ (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and ‘positive healthcare experiences’ (r=−0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

An invisible threat has visibly altered the world. Governments and key institutions have had to implement decisive responses to the danger posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Imposed change will increase the likelihood that alternative explanations take hold. In a proportion of the general population there may be strong scepticism, fear of being misled, and false conspiracy theories. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of conspiracy thinking about the pandemic and test associations with reduced adherence to government guidelines.

A non-probability online survey with 2501 adults in England, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, income, and region.

Approximately 50% of this population showed little evidence of conspiracy thinking, 25% showed a degree of endorsement, 15% showed a consistent pattern of endorsement, and 10% had very high levels of endorsement. Higher levels of coronavirus conspiracy thinking were associated with less adherence to all government guidelines and less willingness to take diagnostic or antibody tests or to be vaccinated. Such ideas were also associated with paranoia, general vaccination conspiracy beliefs, climate change conspiracy belief, a conspiracy mentality, and distrust in institutions and professions. Holding coronavirus conspiracy beliefs was also associated with being more likely to share opinions.

In England there is appreciable endorsement of conspiracy beliefs about coronavirus. Such ideas do not appear confined to the fringes. The conspiracy beliefs connect to other forms of mistrust and are associated with less compliance with government guidelines and greater unwillingness to take up future tests and treatment.

The Green et al., Paranoid Thoughts Scale (GPTS) – comprising two 16-item scales assessing ideas of reference (Part A) and ideas of persecution (Part B) – was developed over a decade ago. Our aim was to conduct the first large-scale psychometric evaluation.

In total, 10 551 individuals provided GPTS data. Four hundred and twenty-two patients with psychosis and 805 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Parts A and B. An additional 1743 patients with psychosis and 7581 non-clinical individuals completed GPTS Part B. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted.

The original two-factor structure of the GPTS had an inadequate model fit: Part A did not form a unidimensional scale and multiple items were locally dependant. A Revised-GPTS (R-GPTS) was formed, comprising eight-item ideas of reference and 10-item ideas of persecution subscales, which had an excellent model fit. All items in the new Reference (a = 2.09–3.67) and Persecution (a = 2.37–4.38) scales were strongly discriminative of shifts in paranoia and had high reliability across the spectrum of severity (a > 0.90). The R-GPTS score ranges are: average (Reference: 0–9; Persecution: 0–4); elevated (Reference: 10–15; Persecution: 5–10); moderately severe (Reference: 16–20; Persecution:11–17); severe (Reference: 21–24; Persecution: 18–27); and very severe (Reference: 25+; Persecution: 28+). Recommended cut-offs on the persecution scale are 11 to discriminate clinical levels of persecutory ideation and 18 for a likely persecutory delusion.

The psychometric evaluation indicated a need to improve the GPTS. The R-GPTS is a more precise measure, has excellent psychometric properties, and is recommended for future studies of paranoia.