Trial reportBMC psychiatry2011
Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Psychoeducation-Based Model Group Work in Continuous Treatment of Patients With Bipolar Disorder in Remission.Alpha psychiatry · 2025Article
- Development and Structures of Trialogue for Bipolar Disorders in Germany and Guidelines of the German Society for Bipolar Disorders.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Unstructured Group Support Enhances Compliance to Pharmacological Treatment by Improving Social Cognition in Patients with Bipolar Disorder: A Pilot fMRI Study.Psychiatry and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021Article
- Harnessing the potential of community-based participatory research approaches in bipolar disorder.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2016Article
- A feasibility study of expert patient and community mental health team led bipolar psychoeducation groups: implementing an evidence based practice.BMC psychiatry · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-didactically delivered curriculum based group psychoeducation has been shown to be more effective than both group support in a specialist mood disorder centre in Spain (with effects lasting up to five years), and treatment as usual in Australia. It is unclear whether the specific content and form of group psychoeducation is effective or the chance to meet and work collaboratively with other peers. The main objective of this trial is to determine whether curriculum based group psychoeducation is more clinically and cost effective than unstructured peer group support. METHODS/
designSingle blind two centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 21 sessions group psychoeducation versus 21 sessions group peer support in adults with bipolar 1 or 2 disorder, not in current episode but relapsed in the previous two years. Individual randomisation is to either group at each site. The groups are carefully matched for the number and type of therapists, length and frequency of the interventions and overall aim of the groups but differ in content and style of delivery. The primary outcome is time to next bipolar episode with measures of the therapeutic process, barriers and drivers to the effective delivery of the interventions and economic analysis. Follow up is for 96 weeks after randomisation. DISCUSSION: The trial has features of both an efficacy and an effectiveness trial design. For generalisability in England it is set in routine public mental health practice with a high degree of expert patient involvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.