A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of interventions reporting outcomes for relatives of people with psychosis

被引:96
|
作者
Lobban, Fiona [1 ]
Postlethwaite, Adam [1 ]
Glentworth, David [2 ]
Pinfold, Vanessa
Wainwright, Laura [1 ]
Dunn, Graham [3 ]
Clancy, Anna [4 ]
Haddock, Gillian [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lancaster, Spectrum Ctr Mental Hlth Res, Lancaster LA1 4YG, England
[2] Bolton EIS, Ctr Hlth, Bolton BL3 4HW, England
[3] Hlth Sci Res Grp, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
[4] Univ Lancaster, Div Hlth Res, Lancaster LA1 4YT, England
[5] Univ Manchester, Sch Psychol Sci, Manchester M13 9PL, Lancs, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Relatives; Psychosis; Interventions; Outcomes; MUTUAL SUPPORT GROUP; COGNITIVE-BEHAVIOR THERAPY; FAMILY INTERVENTION; SCHIZOPHRENIC-PATIENTS; EXPRESSED EMOTION; PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION; EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION; CHINESE FAMILIES; CLINICAL-TRIAL; MENTAL-HEALTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.cpr.2012.12.004
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Relatives play a key role in supporting people with psychosis at all stages of recovery, but this can be associated with high levels of distress. Family interventions, with an international evidence base, improve outcomes for service users but little is known about their impact on relatives' outcomes. This review of published evaluations aimed to assess whether family interventions are effective in improving outcomes for relatives of people with psychosis, to identify the key components of effective intervention packages, and to identify methodological limitations to be addressed in future research. Fifty studies were identified which evaluated an intervention to support relatives against a control group, and in which outcomes for the relative were reported. Thirty (60%) studies showed a statistically significant positive impact of the intervention on at least one relatives' outcome category. Eleven key intervention components were identified across all 50 studies, but there was no evidence that the presence or absence of any of these key components reliably distinguished effective from ineffective interventions. Methodological quality of studies was generally poor with only 11 studies rated as adequate using the Clinical Trial Assessment Measure (CTAM). Recommendations to improve future research include larger samples; better defined interventions and controls; true randomisation and blind assessors; clearly Specified primary outcomes; pre-published analysis plans that account appropriately for missing data and clustering of data; a consensus on the most relevant outcomes to assess and valid and reliable measures to do so. Alternative research designs need to be considered to evaluate more recent approaches which focus on family support, personalised to meet individual need, and offered as an integral part of complex clinical services. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:372 / 382
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A systematic review of reporting quality for anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials
    Elliott, L.
    Coulman, K.
    Blencowe, N. S.
    Qureshi, M., I
    Lee, K. S.
    Hinchliffe, R. J.
    Mouton, R.
    ANAESTHESIA, 2021, 76 (06) : 832 - 836
  • [2] Protocol for a systematic review of reporting standards of anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials
    Elliott, Lucy
    Coulman, Karen
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    Qureshi, Mahim
    Watson, Sethina
    Mouton, Ronelle
    Hinchliffe, Robert J.
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (01):
  • [3] Outcomes of coordinated and integrated interventions targeting frail elderly people: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Eklund, Kajsa
    Wilhelmson, Katarina
    HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE IN THE COMMUNITY, 2009, 17 (05) : 447 - 458
  • [4] Components and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Ward, Lesley
    Stebbings, Simon
    Cherkin, Daniel
    Baxter, G. David
    COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, 2014, 22 (05) : 909 - 919
  • [5] The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review
    Ntala, Chara
    Birmpili, Panagiota
    Worth, Allison
    Anderson, Niall H.
    Sheikh, Aziz
    PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL, 2013, 22 (04): : 417 - 424
  • [6] A systematic review of outcome reporting in achalasia randomised controlled trials
    Gray, R. T.
    Kennedy, R.
    Kennedy, J. A.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 103 : 119 - 119
  • [7] The reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials
    Ghert, M.
    BONE & JOINT RESEARCH, 2017, 6 (10): : 600 - 601
  • [8] The level of reporting of neurocognitive outcomes in randomised controlled trials of brain tumour patients: A systematic review
    Habets, Esther J. J.
    Taphoorn, Martin J. B.
    Klein, Martin
    Vissers, Thomas
    Dirven, Linda
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2018, 100 : 104 - 125
  • [9] Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials of Herbal Interventions in ASEAN Plus Six Countries: A Systematic Review
    Pratoomsoot, Chayanin
    Sruamsiri, Rosarin
    Dilokthornsakul, Piyameth
    Chaiyakunapruk, Nathorn
    PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (01):
  • [10] Effectiveness of psychosocial interventions on health outcomes of children with cancer: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Melesse, Tenaw Gualu
    Chau, Janita Pak Chun
    Nan, M. A.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER CARE, 2022, 31 (06)