MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7116904410 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-106597

Scoping review mapping the implementation and adaptation of life skills training programmes for individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorder: contexts, frameworks, interventions and outcomes

2025· article· en· W7116904410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sirirat Nitayawan, Mary Leamy, Natthapon Inta, Patraporn Tungpunkom

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionAdaptation (eye)Intervention (counseling)Life skillsResource (disambiguation)CognitionCognitive skillSkills managementSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To map the implementation and adaptation of life skills training programmes for individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorder across diverse settings, identifying frameworks, intervention components, outcomes and implementation strategies. DESIGN: A scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), PsycINFO (APA PsycNET), CINAHL (EBSCO), ThaiJo (Thai Journals Online) and TCI-Thailand (Thai-Journal Citation Index) were searched from 1970 to 10 December 2024, supplemented by handsearching reference lists and relevant organisational websites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary studies targeting life skills training for adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, including at least three life skills components (medication management, social skills, communication, organisation/planning, transportation, financial management) and providing intervention details. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. Outcomes were analysed using Kirkpatrick's four-level training evaluation framework. Implementation adaptation, barriers and enablers were identified through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 33 studies from 7 countries (France, Italy, Spain, Canada, USA, Turkey and China) met inclusion criteria. Three major programme frameworks emerged: University of California, Los Angeles Social and Independent Living Skills Programme, Functional Adaptation Skills Training and Cognitive-Behavioural Social Skills Training. Cultural adaptations were crucial for implementation success, with programmes demonstrating adaptability across diverse settings while maintaining core therapeutic components. Implementation barriers included cognitive deficits, transportation difficulties and workforce limitations; enablers included structured formats, diverse teaching methods and family involvement. Most studies showed positive behavioural changes, but only one-third reported broader systemic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Life skills training programmes had been reported to be implemented across diverse settings when appropriately adapted to cultural contexts and resource constraints. Most programmes combine structured learning with real-world practice, accommodate cognitive limitations through diverse teaching methods and engage families in the intervention process. Future research should focus on implementation strategies enhancing skill generalisation, addressing resource limitations in low-income and middle-income countries, and evaluating longer-term outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0390.043
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.355 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicSchizophrenia research and treatment→French-language works237,207→