Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32775967›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2020

Understanding young peoples' and family members' views of treatment for first episode psychosis in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).

R E Byrne, J C Bird, S Reeve, W Jones, D Shiers, A P Morrison, M Pyle, S Peters

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

R E ByrnePsychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Prestwich M25 3BL, UK.
J C BirdDepartment of Psychiatry, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford, OX3 7JX, UK.
S ReeveDepartment of Clinical, Educational, and Health Psychology, University College London, WC1E 6BT, UK.
W JonesPsychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Prestwich M25 3BL, UK.
D ShiersPsychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Prestwich M25 3BL, UK.
A P MorrisonPsychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Prestwich M25 3BL, UK.
M PylePsychosis Research Unit, Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust, Prestwich M25 3BL, UK.
S PetersDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is limited evidence to inform treatment decision-making in adolescents experiencing first episode psychosis (FEP). In the MAPS trial (Managing Adolescent first Episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study), adolescents with FEP received either antipsychotic medication (AP), psychological intervention (PI), or both. We investigated treatment views of young people and family members across each treatment arm of MAPS.

methodsThirteen adolescents participating in MAPS and eighteen family members attended in-depth audio-recorded interviews to discuss trial treatments. Interviews were analysed using inductive Thematic Analysis, identifying salient themes across these accounts.

findingsFamily members in particular reported an urgent need for treatment regardless of type. Both AP and PI were broadly viewed as acceptable treatment approaches, but for differing reasons which participants weighed against a range of concerns. AP were often seen to reduce symptoms of psychosis, though participants expressed concerns about side effects. PI were viewed as interactive treatment approaches that helped improve understanding of psychosis and enhanced coping, although some found PI emotionally and cognitively challenging. Combining treatments was seen to maximise benefits, with a perceived interaction whereby AP facilitated engagement with PI.

interpretationAcceptability of and engagement with treatments for FEP may differ between individual young people and their family/carers. In order to be able to offer fully informed choices, and determine an optimum treatment approach for young people with FEP, definitive trial evidence should be established to determine wanted and unwanted treatment impacts.

fundingNIHR HTA programme (project number 15/31/04).

Indexed as

AdolescentAntipsychotic medicaitonChildFamilyPsychological interventionPsychosisQualitativeTrial

Identifiers

PMID32775967
PMCPMC7393652
OpenAlexW3038230700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.