ArticleBMC psychiatry2015
A qualitative analysis of relatives', health professionals' and service users' views on the involvement in care of relatives in Bipolar Disorder.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators when implementing family involvement for persons with psychotic disorders in community mental health centres - a nested qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- Preferences for an Experience Sampling Method-Based Tool as an Adjunct to Usual Treatment in Patients With Problem Substance Use: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Association between self-esteem and suicide risk in adolescents from five schools in northern Peru: A cross-sectional study.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Experiences of informal caregivers supporting individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder: a systematic review and thematic synthesis.International journal of bipolar disorders · 2025Review
- The uneven triad: a qualitative study of perspectives of relatives, patients, and professionals on (not) involving relatives in mental health.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Clinicians' perceptions of family involvement in the treatment of persons with psychotic disorders: a nested qualitative study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- The lived experience of caring for someone with bipolar disorder: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2023Article
- An online program with individualized vs automated support for significant others of depressed individuals - study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2022Article
- Care burden dimensions of informal caregivers having patients with bipolar disorder (challenges and alternatives) (qualitative study).Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- Qualitative investigation of relatives' and service users' experience of mental healthcare for suicidal behaviour in bipolar disorder.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Involving carers in risk assessment: a study of a structured dialogue between mental health nurses and carers.Journal of research in nursing : JRN · 2019Article
- 'Between a rock and a hard place': family members' experiences of supporting a relative with bipolar disorder.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2018Article
- Physical Health Problems in Psychosis: Is It Time to Consider the Views of Family Carers?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
- Worlds apart? A scoping review addressing different stakeholder perspectives on barriers to family involvement in the care for persons with severe mental illness.BMC health services research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRelatives of people with bipolar disorder report that services do not meet their own needs, despite clinical recommendations for the development of care plans for relatives, provision of information regarding their statutory entitlements, and formal involvement in decision making meetings. Further, there is now conclusive evidence highlighting the benefits of relatives' involvement in improving outcomes for service users, relatives, and the health system as a whole. This qualitative study explored the views of relatives of people with bipolar disorder, service users and healthcare professionals regarding the barriers and the facilitators to relatives' involvement in care.
methodsThirty five people were interviewed (12 relatives, 11 service users and 12 healthcare professionals). Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and common themes in participants' narratives emerged using framework analysis.
resultsParticipants' accounts confirmed the existence of opportunities for relatives to be involved. These, however, were limited and not always accessible. There were three factors identified that influenced accessibility namely: pre-existing worldviews, the quality of relationships and of communication between those involved, and specific structural impediments. DISCUSSION: These themes are understood as intertwined and dependent on one another. People's thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, cultural identifications and worldviews often underlie the ways by which they communicate and the quality of their relationship. These, however, need to be conceptualised within operational frameworks and policy agendas in health settings that often limit bipolar relatives' accessibility to opportunities for being more formally involved.
conclusionsInvolving relatives leads to clear benefits for relatives, service users, healthcare professionals, and the health system as a whole. Successful involvement of relatives, however, depends on a complex network of processes and interactions among all those involved and requires strategic planning from policy makers, operational plans and allocation of resources.
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.