Trial reportBMC psychiatry2014
Qualitative process evaluation of a problem-solving guided self-help manual for family carers of young people with first-episode psychosis.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2014. 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.
- Social problem solving in carers of young people with a first episode of psychosis: a randomized controlled trial.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2017Trial
- Article
- Family Experiences Prior to the Initiation of Care for First-Episode Psychosis: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies.Journal of child and family studies · 2020Article
- Improving mental health service users' with medical co-morbidity transition between tertiary medical hospital and primary care services: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2016Article
- Mental health consumers' with medical co-morbidity experience of the transition through tertiary medical services to primary care.International journal of mental health nursing · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaring for a young person experiencing first-episode psychosis is challenging and can affect carers' well-being adversely. While some face-to-face approaches have achieved promising outcomes, they are costly and resource-intensive to provide, restricting their reach and penetration. Guided self-help in book-form (or bibliotherapy) is an alternative but untested approach in these circumstances. In this study, we aimed to evaluate carers' beliefs about the usefulness of problem-solving guided self-help manual for primary carers of young people with first-episode psychosis.
methodsA qualitative process evaluation nested in a randomised controlled trial, conducted across two early intervention psychosis services in Melbourne, Australia. 124 carers were randomised to problem-solving guided self-help intervention or treatment as usual. We also undertook a qualitative process evaluation, using individual interviews, with a random sample of 24 of the intervention group. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data was undertaken, which is the subject of this paper. Interviews were conducted between January 2009 and September 2010.
resultsThree themes were abstracted from the data, reflecting carers' beliefs about the usefulness of the manual: promoting carers' well-being, increasing carers' understanding of and support for the young person with first-episode psychosis, and accessibility and delivery modes of the programme.
conclusionThis process evaluation highlights that guided self-help is useful in informing and supporting carers of affected young people. While there is scope for broadening the delivery modes, the approach is easy to use and accessible, and can be used as a cost-effective adjunct to standard support provided to carers, by community mental health nurses and other clinicians.
trial registrationACTRN12609000064202.
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.