ArticlePloS one2019
Functioning in schizophrenia from the perspective of psychologists: A worldwide study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Prioritizing treatment targets for youths with disruptive behaviours and callous-unemotional traits: a modified Delphi study.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Validation of the Comprehensive and Brief International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Sets for Schizophrenia from the Perspective of Individuals Diagnosed with the Disorder: A Worldwide Study Using Focus Groups.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Network Analysis of the Brief ICF Core Set for Schizophrenia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Functioning Problems in Persons with Schizophrenia in the Russian Context.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- An Integrated Account of Expert Perspectives on Functioning in Schizophrenia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder associated with impairment in functioning. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to help individuals with this health condition, and psychological interventions are considered a priority. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) offers a theoretical framework for assessing functioning and disability. The ICF Core Sets for schizophrenia are a list of ICF categories describing the most common problems in functioning of persons affected by this health condition. This study aimed to explore the content validity of these ICF Core Sets and to identify the most common problems in people with schizophrenia from the perspective of psychologists. Psychologists with experience of schizophrenia treatment were recruited for a three-round Delphi study in order to gather their views regarding the problems commonly presented by these patients. A total of 175 psychologists from 46 countries covering the six WHO regions answered the first-round questionnaire, and 137 completed all three rounds. The 7,526 concepts extracted from first-round responses were linked to 412 ICF categories and 53 personal factors. Consensus (≥75% agreement) was reached for 76 ICF categories and 28 personal factors. Seventy-three of the 97 ICF categories that form the Comprehensive ICF Core Set for schizophrenia achieved consensus, and only three categories that yielded consensus do not feature in this Core Set. These results support the content validity of these ICF Core Sets from the perspective of psychologists. This provides further evidence of the suitability of the ICF framework for describing functioning and disability in persons with schizophrenia.
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.