SynthesisBMC psychiatry2025
Mental health rehabilitation models for people with complex psychosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rehabilitation in Adults with Complex Psychosis: A Clinician-Oriented Narrative Review of Multidimensional Approaches to Functional Recovery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health rehabilitation services support people with complex psychosis to live successfully in the community. This systematic review aimed to identify and compare the approach and effectiveness of different models of mental health rehabilitation.
methodsSix online databases (PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE and Emcare) were searched for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies published since 2000 that described mental health rehabilitation models. The search was extended by screening references and citations of included studies. A narrative synthesis of included studies was conducted, describing the characteristics and effectiveness of the different models.
resultsWe identified 24 studies which met our inclusion criteria. The studies were categorised based on the rehabilitation model that they described or the main defining feature of the rehabilitation model if it was not a named model (Strengths-Based (n = 4), Goal-Oriented (n = 2), Holistic Care (n = 4), Community Rehabilitation in Low-Income Countries (n = 4), Illness Management and Recovery Programmes (n = 5), Intensive Case Management (n = 2), and Psychosocial Rehabilitation (n = 3)). The rehabilitation models originated from a range of settings, including high-income (Australia, Denmark, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, United States), upper-middle-income (China), and low-income countries (Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Sudan, Turkey). While many of the models were shown to be effective in specific areas, such as personal recovery, symptom reduction, and social functioning, none emerged as universally superior, with varying strengths and limitations across different contexts and outcomes.
conclusionA range of mental health rehabilitation models exists globally. Whilst some appear suited to certain contexts and some have demonstrated effectiveness in regard to specific outcomes, greater consensus on the specific components comprising a comprehensive biopsychosocial approach to mental health rehabilitation for people with complex psychosis is needed. However, a degree of flexibility is required to ensure the model can be effectively implemented in local settings. REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024542294) on 2 May 2024.
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.