Barriers and facilitators to implementing family support and education in Early Psychosis Intervention programmes: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family support is a core component of the Early Psychosis Intervention (EPI) model, yet it continues to have relatively low rates of implementation in practice. This paper reports results of a literature review on facilitators and barriers to delivering family interventions in EPI programmes. A search was conducted of 4 electronic databases, Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Joanna Briggs, from 2000 to 2015 using terms related to early onset psychosis, family work and implementation. Four thousand four hundred and two unique studies were identified, 7 of which met inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were coded and aggregated to higher-level themes using a consensus approach. Five of 7 studies examined structured multifamily psychoeducation. Uptake by families was affected by: family/client interest and readiness to participate; ability to access supports; and support needs/preferences. Implementation by programmes was affected by staff access to training and resources to provide family support. A key finding across the identified studies was that families have different needs and preferences regarding the timing, length, intensity and content of the intervention. One size does not fit all and many families do not require the intensive psychoeducational programmes typically provided. The reviewed literature suggests that flexible, tiered approaches to care may better meet family needs and increase rates of uptake of family support. However, more research is needed on the effectiveness of different models of family support in early psychosis and how they can be successfully implemented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it