Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414695›Full record

ArticleCommunity mental health journal2025

Taking what you get or Getting what you Need: A Qualitative Study on Experiences with Mental Health and Welfare Services in Long-Term Recovery in First-Episode Psychosis.

Gina Åsbø, Hanne Haavind, Sindre Hembre Kruse, Kristin Fjelnseth Wold, Wenche Ten Velden Hegelstad, Kristin Lie Romm, Mike Slade, Torill Ueland, Ingrid Melle, Carmen Simonsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Community mental health journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

10 authors.

Gina ÅsbøSection for Clinical Psychosis Research, Department of Research and Innovation, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. gina.asbo@psykologi.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0003-3135-3522
Hanne HaavindDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Sindre Hembre KruseEarly Intervention in Psychosis Advisory Unit for Southeast Norway, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin Fjelnseth WoldSection for Clinical Psychosis Research, Department of Research and Innovation, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Wenche Ten Velden HegelstadTIPS - Centre for Clinical Research in Psychosis, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway.
Kristin Lie RommSection for Clinical Psychosis Research, Department of Research and Innovation, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Torill UelandSection for Clinical Psychosis Research, Department of Research and Innovation, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Ingrid MelleSection for Clinical Psychosis Research, Department of Research and Innovation, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Carmen SimonsenSection for Clinical Psychosis Research, Department of Research and Innovation, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

How people in long-term recovery (clinical and personal) in first-episode psychosis (schizophrenia and bipolar spectrum disorders) experience the mental health and welfare services they interact with is not frequently studied but has significant implications. We therefore aimed to explore which aspects of these services people with FEP evaluate as important for their long-term recovery. Twenty participants in clinical and/or personal recovery from two Norwegian long-term follow-up studies after FEP (TOP 10-year and TIPS 20-year) were sampled for this interview-based qualitative study. The research-team included service user experience. A deductive analysis based on personal accounts of recovery generated five service aspects. Few specific types of interventions were reported to promote recovery although medications, psychotherapy and employment support were mentioned. Participants valued services based in collaboration and that focused on their resources rather than limitations. The importance of long-term follow-up with a consistent aim was highlighted, as was the inclusion of caregivers and peers. Welfare services contributed to recovery by supporting basic needs and safety, but some experienced social exclusion when not participating in the labor market. This study is unique in exploring the role of services, including welfare, in long-term FEP recovery from service user perspectives. Participants evaluated that services played a more indirect role in long-term recovery by supporting their personal resources, although what they needed from services had frequently not been offered. Their expertise by experience contributes valuable knowledge. Better service coordination and consistent implementation of this knowledge are crucial to support recovery in FEP.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesPsychotic DisordersSocial WelfareAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQualitative ResearchYoung AdultBipolar disorderFirst-episode psychosisQualitativeRecoverySchizophreniaServices

Identifiers

PMID39414695
PMCPMC11772452

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.