Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29941055›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science2018

A systematic scoping review of psychological therapies for psychosis within acute psychiatric in-patient settings.

Pamela Jacobsen, Kathleen Hodkinson, Emmanuelle Peters, Paul Chadwick

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Lack of Sample Diversity in Research on Adolescent Depression and Social Media Use: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors.

Pamela JacobsenClinical Psychologist and NIHR Research Fellow,Department of Psychology,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,UK.
Kathleen HodkinsonAssistant Professor,Department of Psychology,Webster Vienna Private University,Austria.
Emmanuelle PetersReader of Clinical Psychology,Department of Psychology,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London and South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust,UK.
Paul ChadwickProfessor of Clinical Psychology and DClinPsy Programme Director,Department of Psychology,Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London,UK.

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2014-07-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with psychotic disorders account for most acute admissions to psychiatric wards. Psychological therapies are a treatment adjunct to standard medication and nursing care, but the evidence base for such therapies within in-patient settings is unclear.AimsTo conduct a systematic scoping review of the current evidence base for psychological therapies for psychosis delivered within acute in-patient settings (PROSPERO: CRD42015025623).

methodAll study designs, and therapy models, were eligible for inclusion in the review. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, ProQuest, conference abstracts and trial registries.

resultsWe found 65 studies that met criteria for inclusion in the review, 21 of which were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The majority of studies evaluated cognitive-behavioural interventions. Quality was variable across all study types. The RCTs were mostly small (n<25 in the treatment arm), and many had methodological limitations including poorly described randomisation methods, inadequate allocation concealment and non-masked outcome assessments. We found studies used a wide range of different outcome measures, and relatively few studies reported affective symptoms or recovery-based outcomes. Many studies described adaptations to treatment delivery within in-patient settings, including increased frequency of sessions, briefer interventions and use of single-session formats.

conclusionsBased on these findings, there is a clear need to improve methodological rigour within in-patient research. Interpretation of the current evidence base is challenging given the wide range of different therapies, outcome measures and models of delivery described in the literature.Declaration of interestNone.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyHospitalizationHumansPsychotic DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeCognitive–behavioural therapiesinpatient treatmentoutcome studiespsychosocial interventionspsychotic disordersrandomised control trial

Identifiers

PMID29941055
PMCPMC6054872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.