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

被引:99
|
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
  • [31] Health promotion lifestyle interventions for weight management in psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    Elena Bonfioli
    Loretta Berti
    Claudia Goss
    Francesca Muraro
    Lorenzo Burti
    BMC Psychiatry, 12
  • [32] A systematic review of reporting standards of assisted vaginal birth randomised controlled trials
    Hotton, E.
    Renwick, S.
    Lenguerrand, E.
    Wade, J.
    Draycott, T.
    Crofts, J.
    Blencowe, N.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2021, 128 : 98 - 98
  • [33] Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
    Shahzad, Rida
    Ayub, Bushra
    Siddiqui, M. A. Rehman
    BMJ OPEN, 2022, 12 (09):
  • [34] Systematic review of clinical outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of burn care
    Young, Amber E.
    Davies, Anna
    Bland, Sophie
    Brookes, Sara
    Blazeby, Jane M.
    BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (02):
  • [35] Quality of reporting inflammatory bowel disease randomised controlled trials: a systematic review
    Gordon, Morris
    Khudr, Jamal
    Sinopoulou, Vassiliki
    Lakunina, Svetlana
    Rane, Aditi
    Akobeng, Anthony
    BMJ OPEN GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 11 (01):
  • [36] Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review
    Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina G.
    Karvouni, Anastasia
    Kouri, Ioanna
    Ioannidis, John P. A.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2009, 338 : 152 - 154
  • [37] Outcome reporting in UK-based maternity trials: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Mahmud, A.
    Haywood, K.
    Kenyon, S.
    Khan, T.
    Mcarthur, C.
    Ismail, K.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2016, 123 : 116 - 117
  • [38] Primary Outcomes Reporting in Trials (PORTal): a systematic review of inadequate reporting in pediatric randomized controlled trials
    Bhaloo, Zafira
    Adams, Denise
    Liu, Yali
    Hansraj, Namrata
    Hartling, Lisa
    Terwee, Caroline B.
    Vohra, Sunita
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 81 : 33 - 41
  • [39] Reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on nail psoriasis: a systematic review
    Busard, C. I.
    Nolte, J. Y. C.
    Pasch, M. C.
    Spuls, P. I.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY, 2018, 178 (03) : 640 - 649
  • [40] Interventions for improving teamwork in intrapartum care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
    Wu, Michael
    Tang, Jennifer
    Etherington, Nicole
    Walker, Mark
    Boet, Sylvain
    BMJ QUALITY & SAFETY, 2020, 29 (01) : 77 - 85