Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24612754›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2014

Effectiveness of a community-based intervention for people with schizophrenia and their caregivers in India (COPSI): a randomised controlled trial.

Sudipto Chatterjee, Smita Naik, Sujit John, Hamid Dabholkar, Madhumitha Balaji, Mirja Koschorke, Mathew Varghese, Rangaswamy Thara, Helen A Weiss, Paul Williams and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 133 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

133 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Intensive case management for severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Sudipto ChatterjeeSangath, Goa, India.
Smita NaikSangath, Goa, India.
Sujit JohnSchizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Hamid DabholkarParivartan, Satara, India.
Madhumitha BalajiSangath, Goa, India.
Mirja KoschorkeKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Health Service and Population Research Department, London, UK.
Mathew VargheseDepartment of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, India.
Rangaswamy TharaSchizophrenia Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Helen A WeissMedical Research Council Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Paul WilliamsCentre for Global Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, London, UK.
Paul McCroneCentre for Global Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, London, UK.
Vikram PatelSangath, Goa, India; Centre for Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India.
Graham ThornicroftKing's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Health Service and Population Research Department, London, UK. Electronic address: graham.thornicroft@kcl.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1053Medical Research Council MR/K012126/1Wellcome Trust 084355/Z/07/ZWellcome Trust 084674Wellcome Trust 091834Wellcome Trust 100714
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational evidence suggests that community-based services for people with schizophrenia can be successfully provided by community health workers, when supervised by specialists, in low-income and middle-income countries. We did the COmmunity care for People with Schizophrenia in India (COPSI) trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative community-based care intervention with standard facility-based care.

methodsWe did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at three sites in India between Jan 1, 2009 and Dec 31, 2010. Patients aged 16-60 years with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic Criteria for Research (ICD-10-DCR) were randomly assigned (2:1), via a computer-generated randomisation list with block sizes of three, six, or nine, to receive either collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care or facility-based care alone. Randomisation was stratified by study site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was a change in symptoms and disabilities over 12 months, as measured by the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and the Indian disability evaluation and assessment scale (IDEAS). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 56877013.

findings187 participants were randomised to the collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care group and 95 were randomised to the facility-based care alone group; 253 (90%) participants completed follow-up to month 12. At 12 months, total PANSS and IDEAS scores were lower in patients in the intervention group than in those in the control group (PANSS adjusted mean difference -3.75, 95% CI -7.92 to 0.42; p=0.08; IDEAS -0.95, -1.68 to -0.23; p=0.01). However, no difference was shown in the proportion of participants who had a reduction of more than 20% in overall symptoms (PANSS 85 [51%] in the intervention group vs 44 [51%] in the control group; p=0.89; IDEAS 75 [48%] vs 28 [35%]). We noted a significant reduction in symptom and disability outcomes at the rural Tamil Nadu site (-9.29, -15.41 to -3.17; p=0.003). Two patients (one in each group) died by suicide during the study, and two patients died because of complications of a road traffic accident and pre-existing cardiac disease. 18 (73%) patients (17 in the intervention group) were admitted to hospital during the course of the trial, of whom seven were admitted because of physical health problems, such as acute gastritis and vomiting, road accident, high fever, or cardiovascular disease.

interpretationThe collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care intervention is modestly more effective than facility-based care, especially for reducing disability and symptoms of psychosis. Our results show that the study intervention is best implemented as an initial service in settings where services are scarce, for example in rural areas.

fundingWellcome Trust.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorAdolescentAdultCommunity Mental Health ServicesDisability EvaluationFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedSchizophreniaTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24612754
PMCPMC4255067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.