ArticleNIHR open research2021
Whole Life: a feasibility study of a recovery-focussed intervention in patients with stabilised schizophrenia.
Article in NIHR open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The Recovery Approach is about supporting people to live the best life they possibly can. This paper reports on a 2008-11 study of a recovery-focussed, one-to-one coaching programme called Whole Life (WL) in a group of people with stabilised schizophrenia. WL comprises 15 modules, each addressing an aspect of life that may pose challenges for someone with mental illness. It involves regular meetings with a coach, additional homework activities and lasts approximately one-year. This level of commitment requires participants to be motivated and enthusiastic. Methods: This was a non-randomised feasibility study, designed to assess acceptability and potential benefits of WL. The WL group was compared to another group of people with the same diagnosis, who received their usual treatment. This was not a strict control group. The primary outcome measure was the Social Adaptation Self-Assessment Scale. Results: Of those recruited to the WL group, 33/44 (75%) completed the full programme. WL participants showed an 11-point increase in mean SASS between baseline and Week 60. Subjective ratings showed benefits of WL at 3 and 6 months after the intervention had ceased, with most saying they felt better and none saying that they felt worse. The comparison group was more ill than the WL group at baseline and showed some improvement over the course of the study, albeit at a lower level than the WL group. However, controlling for baseline group differences meant that none of the outcome measures could reliably distinguish between WL and comparison groups. Conclusions: The study showed that WL is an acceptable and helpful intervention for motivated and enthusiastic individuals. It may have wider applicability for people with a less serious and chronic mental illness, although we do not know how it compares to other interventions. We discuss some methodological limitations of the 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.