Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29188393›Full record

SynthesisCommunity mental health journal2018

Recovery in Psychosis from a Service User Perspective: A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis of Current Qualitative Evidence.

L Wood, S Alsawy

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Community mental health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Healthcare cost for non-hospital services and pharmaceuticals among breast cancer survivors: an event study.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

L WoodNorth East London Foundation Trust, Goodmayes Hospital, London, IG3 8XJ, UK. lisawood3@nhs.net.
S AlsawyPennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Stansfield Place, 1 Marshall Road, Rochdale, OL16 5PX, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing number of qualitative accounts regarding recovery from psychosis from a service user perspective. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of these qualitative accounts. A thematic synthesis was utilised to synthesise and analyse seventeen studies included in the review. Studies were included if they used a qualitative methodology to explore service users' experiences of recovery from psychosis as a primary research question. All included studies were subjected to a quality assessment. The analysis outlined three subordinate themes: the recovery journey, facilitators of recovery (e.g. faith and spirituality, personal agency and hope), and barriers to recovery (e.g. stigma and discrimination, negative effects of mental health services and medication). Recovery is an idiosyncratic process but includes key components which are important to people who experience psychosis. These should be explored within clinical practice.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdolescentAdultAgedChildFemaleHumansMaleMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPsychotic DisordersQualitative ResearchRecovery of FunctionReligion and PsychologySelf ConceptPsychosisRecoverySystematic reviewThematic synthesis

Identifiers

PMID29188393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.