Evidence Hub

Sleep disruption and its psychological treatment in young people at risk of psychosis: A peer methods qualitative evaluation

Waite F, Evans S, Rebello A, Sharpe T, Otaiku J, Iredale E, Kabir T, Černis E et al.

The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026

16 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Objectives: A recent randomized controlled feasibility trial showed that sleep problems in young people at risk of psychosis can be successfully treated with psychological therapy and that this may bring additional benefits such as reducing depression, anxiety and paranoia. Here we report participants' qualitative experience of sleep problems and therapy.

Design: A peer-methods qualitative study employing reflexive thematic analysis.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews, co-facilitated by peer researchers, were conducted with 16 young patients at risk of psychosis and having sleep problems who participated in the SleepWell Trial (ISRCTN85601537). Ten interviewees had received the 12-week sleep therapy.

Results: Four themes were generated: (1) the challenge to access mental health treatment ('bouncing between services'), (2) sleep problems and mental health difficulties are intertwined ('an obvious link'), (3) flexibility in therapy provision matters ('tailored to me as a person') and (4) improving sleep leads to wider benefits ('fixing the sleep helped everything else'). Participants described a frustrating journey to access mental health treatment, marked by rejection and invalidation, which resulted in hopelessness and often resignation. The interaction between sleep disruption and other mental health difficulties was seen as obvious. Treatment for sleep problems was highly valued. The clear focus, therapeutic style and flexible delivery of the treatment was seen to create…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 16 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free