MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211042424 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000088

Family intervention for schizophrenia

2003· review· en· W4211042424 on OpenAlexaff
FM Pharoah, John Rathbone, Mari Jj, David L. Streiner

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialCochrane LibraryMedicinePsychological interventionSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychiatryIntervention (counseling)Meta-analysisOdds ratioMEDLINEConfidence intervalFamily therapyClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It has been showed that people with schizophrenia from families that express high levels of criticism, hostility, or over involvement, have more frequent relapses than people with similar problems from families that tend to be less expressive of their emotions. Psychosocial interventions designed to reduce these levels of expressed emotions within families now exist for mental health workers. These interventions are proposed as adjuncts rather than alternatives to drug treatments, and their main purpose is to decrease the stress within the family and also the rate of relapse. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of family psychosocial interventions in community settings for the care of those with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like conditions compared to standard care. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 1998), the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (June 1998), EMBASE (1981-1995) and MEDLINE (1966-1995) were undertaken and supplemented with reference searching of the identified literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised studies were selected if they focused on families of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and compared community-orientated family-based psychosocial intervention of more than five sessions to standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were reliably extracted, and, where appropriate and possible, summated. Peto odds ratios (OR), their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and number needed to treat (NNT) were estimated. The reviewers assume that people who died or dropped out had no improvement and tested the sensitivity of the final results to this assumption. MAIN RESULTS: Family intervention may decrease the frequency of relapse (one year OR 0.57 CI 0.4-0.8, NNT 6.5 CI 4-14). The trend over time of this main finding is towards the null and some small but negative studies may not have been identified by the search. Family intervention may decrease hospitalisation and encourage compliance with medication but data are few and equivocal. Family intervention does not obviously effect the tendency of individuals/families to drop out of care. It may improve general social impairment and the levels of expressed emotion within the family. This review provides no data to suggest that family intervention either prevents or promotes suicide. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians, researchers, policy makers and recipients of care cannot be confident of the effects of family intervention from the findings of this review. Further data from already completed trials could greatly inform practice and more trials are justified as long as their participants, interventions and outcomes are generalisable to routine care.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207