↓ Skip to main content

Do Family Interventions Improve Outcomes in Early Psychosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
67 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
240 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do Family Interventions Improve Outcomes in Early Psychosis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00371
Pubmed ID
Authors

Melanie Claxton, Juliana Onwumere, Miriam Fornells-Ambrojo

Abstract

Family interventions for psychosis (FIp) are effective in reducing service user relapse and carer distress in people with schizophrenia-spectrum conditions. Several treatment and best practice guidelines recommend FIp for all people with schizophrenia. However, outcome findings in relation to early psychosis groups have been inconsistent. The current paper reports a systematic review and meta-analyses of articles that evaluated FIp in early psychosis with a clearly defined comparison group. A combination of electronic database searches (using PsychINFO, Medline, and CENTRAL), citation searches and hand searches of key journals and reviews was conducted. Peer-reviewed articles published in English from database inception to June 2016 were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool (EPHPP). Seventeen papers from 14 studies met inclusion criteria for review, the overall quality of which was moderate. Meta-analytic synthesis showed that FIp improved service user functioning and reduced the likelihood of relapse by the end of treatment. Psychotic symptoms were significantly reduced in the FIp group at follow up, but this was not evident at end of treatment. In terms of FIp target mechanisms, carers receiving FIp were more likely to shift from high to low expressed emotion and less likely to report patient focused criticism or engage in conflict communication than carers randomized to standard care. Carer burden and well-being were improved by the end of treatment but gains were not sustained at follow up. FIp had no impact on carer emotional over-involvement. The findings indicate that FIp is an effective intervention for early psychosis service users and their relatives. However, further research is required to establish which key therapeutic components of FIp are most effective for whom, in addition to understanding the mechanisms by which FIp might affect positive change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 240 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 239 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 82 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 71 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 11%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 86 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,004,150
of 26,213,600 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,143
of 35,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,679
of 327,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#62
of 532 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,213,600 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,098 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 532 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.