Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37293406›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023

Clinicians' perceptions of family involvement in the treatment of persons with psychotic disorders: a nested qualitative study.

Lars Hestmark, Maria Romøren, Kristiane Myckland Hansson, Kristin Sverdvik Heiervang, Reidar Pedersen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lars HestmarkCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Maria RomørenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristiane Myckland HanssonCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin Sverdvik HeiervangCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Reidar PedersenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Family involvement in mental health care ranges from basic practices to complex interventions such as Family psychoeducation, the latter being a well-documented treatment for psychotic disorders. The aim of this study was to explore clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and disadvantages of family involvement, including possible mediating factors and processes. Methods: Nested in a randomised trial, which purpose was to implement Basic family involvement and support and Family psychoeducation in Norwegian community mental health centres during 2019-2020, this qualitative study is based on eight focus groups with implementation teams and five focus groups with ordinary clinicians. Using a purposive sampling strategy and semi-structured interview guides, focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed with reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Four main themes were identified as perceived benefits: (1) Family psychoeducation-a concrete framework, (2) Reducing conflict and stress, (3) A triadic understanding, and (4) Being on the same team. Themes 2-4 formed an interconnected triad of mutually reinforcing elements and were further linked to three important clinician-facilitated sub-themes: a space for relatives' experiences, emotions and needs; a space for patients and relatives to discuss sensitive topics and an open line of communication between clinician and relative. Although far less frequent, three main themes were identified as perceived disadvantages or challenges: (1) Family psychoeducation-occasional poor model fit or difficulties following the framework, (2) Getting more involved than usual, and (3) Relatives as a potentially negative influence-important nonetheless. Conclusions: The findings contribute to the understanding of the beneficial processes and outcomes of family involvement, as well as the critical role of the clinician in achieving these and possible challenges. They could also be used to inform future quantitative research on mediating factors and implementation efforts.

Indexed as

family involvementfamily psychoeducationmental health services researchpsychotic disordersqualitative methods

Identifiers

PMID37293406
PMCPMC10244542
OpenAlexW4378071853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.