MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4235872585 · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbm058

Supportive Therapy for Schizophrenia

2007· article· en· W4235872585 sur OpenAlexaff
L Buckley, T Pettit

Notice bibliographique

RevueSchizophrenia Bulletin · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSchizophrenia research and treatment
Établissements canadiensCochrane
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychotherapistPsychologyPsychiatryMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

One common feature of psychotherapies and professional interventions for people with schizophrenia is to provide support. For example, in a consultation, there will often be time allocated to listening to patients' concerns, giving encouragement, or arranging help with day-to-day living. There is, however, no universally accepted definition of supportive therapy. We used a wide definition to include any intervention from a single person with the aim of maintaining current functioning or to assist with a person's preexisting abilities. This includes interventions that require a trained therapist, such as supportive psychotherapy, as well as other interventions that require no training, such as “befriending.” We did not include interventions that sought to educate, train, or change a person's way of coping. To assess the effects of supportive therapy for people with schizophrenia, primarily on the outcomes of relapse, hospitalization, important change in mental state, global functioning, engagement with services, and satisfaction with care. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (January 2004), supplemented by manual reference searching and contact with authors of relevant reviews or studies. All randomized trials involving people with schizophrenia comparing supportive therapy with any other treatment or standard care. We independently selected articles to be read fully from the abstracts, and, again working independently, selected articles for inclusion in the review, and extracted data for analysis. We resolved all disagreement by discussion. We could include 22 studies but data were limited. We found no significant differences in the primary outcomes when supportive therapy was compared with standard care. When, however, supportive therapy was the control intervention and was being compared with other psychological therapies, some differences were apparent—all favoring the other therapies (see table 1). More detailed findings are reported in the full version of this review.1 Comparison of Supportive Therapy With Other Therapies Note: CI, confidence interval. RR, relative risk. NNT, number needed to treat. CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy. Weighted mean difference. Standardized mean difference. Comparison of Supportive Therapy With Other Therapies Note: CI, confidence interval. RR, relative risk. NNT, number needed to treat. CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy. Weighted mean difference. Standardized mean difference. There is insufficient data to identify a difference in outcome between supportive therapy and standard care (4 randomized controlled trial [RCT], n = 354). For a variety of outcomes, including hospitalization, general mental state, and satisfaction with care, there is some indication of an advantage of other psychological therapies over supportive therapy. However, there were always few data, a lack of consistency on reporting of outcomes, and the potential of inclusion bias favoring the group not receiving supportive therapy. From this review, data do not support the conclusion that supportive therapy offers anything different to other forms of psychological intervention. In addition, there is currently no evidence that supportive therapy adds to standard care in terms of the outcomes we sought. It seems intuitive that support be given to people with schizophrenia. Whether this should be formalized into a therapy package remains in doubt. Further trials are indicated for this common approach. Researchers should consider using supportive therapy as the main treatment arm rather than a comparator and should ensure therapists have been specifically trained in a well-defined supportive therapy. Outcome measures could also address areas that have been relatively neglected to date, including adverse effects, social functioning, occupational status, quality of life, and economic outcomes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,309
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueSchizophrenia BulletinMême sujetSchizophrenia research and treatmentTravaux en français237 207