Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26590161›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2015

Can mental health interventions change social networks? A systematic review.

Kimberley Anderson, Neelam Laxhman, Stefan Priebe

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 106 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions for prodromal stage of psychosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Stakeholder identified research priorities for early intervention in psychosis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kimberley AndersonReinier van Arkel Groep, Bethanistraat 2, 5211 LJ, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands. k.anderson@reiniervanarkel.nl.
Neelam LaxhmanUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry (WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, Glen Road, E13 8SP, London, UK. neelam.laxhman@elft.nhs.uk.
Stefan PriebeUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry (WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, Newham Centre for Mental Health, Glen Road, E13 8SP, London, UK. s.priebe@qmul.ac.uk.
Queen Mary University of London · GBReinier van Arkel · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial networks of patients with psychosis can provide social support, and improve health and social outcomes, including quality of life. However, patients with psychosis often live rather isolated with very limited social networks. Evidence for interventions targeting symptoms or social skills, are largely unsuccessful at improving social networks indirectly. As an alternative, interventions may directly focus on expanding networks. In this systematic review, we assessed what interventions have previously been tested for this and to what extent they have been effective.

methodsA systematic review was conducted of randomised controlled trials, testing psychosocial interventions designed to directly increase the social networks of patients with psychosis. Searches of five online databases (PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, MEDLINE, Embase), hand searching of grey literature, and both forward and backward snowballing of key papers were conducted and completed on 12 December 2014. Trial reports were included if they were written in English, the social network size was the primary outcome, participants were ≥ 18 years old and diagnosed with a psychotic disorder.

resultsFive studies (n = 631 patients) met the complete inclusion criteria. Studies were from different countries and published since 2008. Four trials had significant positive results, i.e. an observable increase in patients' social network size at the end of the intervention. The interventions included: guided peer support, a volunteer partner scheme, supported engagement in social activity, dog-assisted integrative psychological therapy and psychosocial skills training. Other important elements featured were the presence of a professional, and a focus on friendships and peers outside of services and the immediate family.

conclusionsDespite the small number and heterogeneity of included studies, the results suggest that interventions directly targeting social isolation can be effective and achieve a meaningful increase in patients' networks. Thus, although limited, the existing evidence is encouraging, and the range of interventions used in the reported trials leave various options for future research and further improvements. Future research is needed to test the findings in different settings, identify which components are particularly effective, and determine to what extent the increased networks, over time, impact on patients' symptoms and quality of life.

Indexed as

Social SupportAdultAnimalsDogsFamily RelationsHumansMaleMental Health ServicesPsychotherapyPsychotic DisordersQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial Isolation

Identifiers

PMID26590161
PMCPMC4654911
OpenAlexW2176593247

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.