ArticlePsychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)2013
Generalizability in the family-to-family education program randomized waitlist-control trial.
Article in Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Religious Coping Among Adults Caring for Family Members with Serious Mental Illness.Community mental health journal · 2016Trial
- Qualitative Study of NAMI Homefront Family Support Program.Community mental health journal · 2020Article
- Measuring the Work Impact of Caregiving for Individuals With Schizophrenia and/or Schizoaffective Disorder With the Caregiver Work Limitations Questionnaire (WLQ).Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2017Article
- The Relationship Between the Perceived Risk of Harm by a Family Member with Mental Illness and the Family Experience.Community mental health journal · 2015Article
- Family Recovery.Community mental health journal · 2015Article
- Race-related differences in the experiences of family members of persons with mental illness participating in the NAMI Family to Family Education Program.American journal of community psychology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) may have limited generalizability for the community when a high proportion of individuals refuse randomization or otherwise do not participate-a not uncommon phenomenon. A randomized waitlist-control trial of the Family-to-Family (FTF) education program, a 12-week course offered by the National Alliance on Mental Illness for family members of adults with mental illness, was previously reported. This study assessed whether the RCT-derived estimates of effectiveness of FTF were generalizable to individuals who participated in FTF but declined participation in the RCT.
methodsPropensity score matching was used to create five quintiles, each containing scores for individuals in FTF or waitlist conditions and for decliners; scores were matched on multiple baseline characteristics (N=442) within each quintile. Effectiveness estimates, with standard errors, were derived for the decliner population on the basis of effectiveness estimates derived from participants in the RCT; estimates were weighted to the baseline distribution of quintiles for the decliners.
resultsFor each outcome, estimates of the effect sizes observed in the RCT were very similar to the effect sizes observed for the decliner population; confidence intervals also had a high degree of overlap.
conclusionsThis study suggests that the benefits of FTF observed in the RCT are generalizable to the group of individuals who declined RCT participation, providing further evidence of FTF's effectiveness. Propensity score matching was a useful statistical tool for addressing selection bias resulting from high rates of nonconsent in randomized waitlist-control trials.
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.