ArticleEClinicalMedicine2020
Clinicians' views of treatment types for first episode psychosis delivered in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The value of qualitative research in randomized controlled trials involving drugs and medical devices: a systematic mapping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Pooled it
- Relative Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Antipsychotics and the Combination for People with First Episode Psychosis: A Two-Study Pooled Analysis of Individual Participant Data.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Pooled it
- Cognitive behavioural therapy added to standard care for first-episode and recent-onset psychosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Cognitive behavioural therapy without medication for schizophrenia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2020Trial
- "We Are Humans, and We Are People" - A Thematic Analysis Exploring the Disclosure and Help-Seeking Experiences of Young People Who Experience Voice-Hearing Within Mental Health Services in the UK.Clinical child psychology and psychiatry · 2026Article
- Exploring the preferences of multiple stakeholder groups for family involvement in early intervention services for psychosis: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- "Attitudes to voices": a survey exploring the factors influencing clinicians' intention to assess distressing voices and attitudes towards working with young people who hear voices.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Understanding young peoples' and family members' views of treatment for first episode psychosis in a randomised controlled trial (MAPS).EClinicalMedicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinicians' treatment beliefs could affect the feasibility of delivering different treatments in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). In MAPS (Managing Adolescent first Episode Psychosis: a feasibility Study), adolescents with first episode psychosis (FEP) were randomly allocated to receive either antipsychotic medication (AP), psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention [FI]), or both. We conducted a nested qualitative study to investigate clinicians' views of these treatments.
methodsPurposive sampling identified seventeen clinicians from CAMHS and Early Intervention services with prescribing responsibilities for 14-18 year olds at three participating MAPS sites. Individual participants were interviewed to examine their views of treatments in the MAPS trial. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive Thematic Analysis.
findingsClinicians viewed the decision to refer adolescents to the MAPS trial as requiring careful clinical judgement. Assessment complexity and diagnostic uncertainty had to be balanced against the urgency for treatment to reduce risk and distress. Underlying influences including duty of care and treatment beliefs underpinned decisions. Clinicians consistently valued AP as the primary treatment for FEP, with CBT and/or FI seen as helpful secondary treatment options. Nevertheless, the potential harms of prescribing AP, or not, to such a young population were highlighted as being of concern in treatment decision-making, and fostered reluctance to refer into a RCT.
interpretationThe design and delivery of RCTs involving young people experiencing FEP should consider the views of responsible clinicians, recognising that perceived treatment urgency, limitations in diagnostic precision, and existing treatment beliefs may influence trial processes.
fundingNIHR HTA programme (project number 15/31/04).
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.