Trial reportCommunity mental health journal2020
Factors Predicting Response to the Recovery-Oriented Cognitive Behavioural Workshop for Persons Diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
Trial report in Community mental health journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community-based recovery interventions for improving mental health in schizophrenia patients: a scoping review in Southeast Asia.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recovery-oriented, cognitive behavioural workshop for service users diagnosed with schizophrenia was developed, implemented and evaluated in a pilot study. Further analysis is required regarding factors which contribute to better treatment response, as this will provide useful information for workshop adaptation. Secondary multilevel model analyses were performed to determine whether workshop and booster session attendance, as well as sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, education, and duration of illness, predicted workshop responsiveness. Results showed that completers had lower responsiveness to the workshop in terms of confidence and hope, whereas those who attended an online booster session demonstrated better responsiveness as to psychosocial functioning. Longer duration of illness and older age generally predicted lower intervention responsiveness. In conclusion, adaptations utilising more booster sessions and accommodating older participants with longer duration of illness are required, as is further workshop evaluation in a randomised controlled study.
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.