Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40890647›Full record

Trial reportBMC psychiatry2025

Becoming diplomats with boundaries - a thematic analysis of relatives' experiences with group-based psychoeducation about bipolar disorder.

Julie Ravneberg Stokholm, Anna Kristine Waldemar, Lars Vedel Kessing

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06176001 (Group-based Psychoeducation for Relatives of Patients With Bipolar Disorder - a Large Scale Real-world Randomized Controlled Parallel Group Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT06176001 nacompletednot on this map

Group-based Psychoeducation for Relatives of Patients With Bipolar Disorder - a Large Scale Real-world Randomized Controlled Parallel Group Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMental Health Centre Copenhagen, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg HospitalRan2022 to 2024Enrolled206ConditionsBipolar DisorderArmspsychoeducation in groups
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

3 authors.

Julie Ravneberg StokholmPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, The Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Center (CADIC), Hovedvejen 17, 1. floor, 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark. julie.ravneberg.stokholm@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-7765-5126
Anna Kristine WaldemarCompetence Centre for Recovery, Mental Health Services in the Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-2581-1662
Lars Vedel KessingPsychiatric Center Copenhagen, The Copenhagen Affective Disorder Research Center (CADIC), Hovedvejen 17, 1. floor, 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0001-9377-9436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGroup-based psychoeducation for relatives of patients with bipolar disorder (BD) is offered at the Copenhagen Affective Disorder Clinic, Denmark. This qualitative study explores relatives' experiences with the program, how it influenced them, and key factors shaping these effects.

methodsWe interviewed 10 relatives (5 parents and 5 partners) who had recently completed the psychoeducation program. We included only parents and partners, as they make up 90% of attendees at the clinic's psychoeducation. The interviews were individual, semi-structured, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Through a concurrent parallel RCT study involving 206 relatives, we obtained 70 written commentaries from an evaluation questionnaire about the education.

resultsThrough the analysis, we developed five themes: A: Relating through shared experiences, B: Understanding the land of Bipolar Disorder, C: Trusting the Treatment Means Sharing the Burden, D: Setting boundaries to protect yourself, and E: Becoming a diplomat. Participants valued recognizing themselves in others, but meaningful recognition required similarity in relation (partner or parent) and BD type I or II (theme A). Understanding BD and its treatment was crucial for participants (B & C), with some participants reporting significant knowledge gains while others were already familiar. Some participants found great relief in meeting the clinicians and learning to trust the treatment, as they had previously been concerned about its quality and felt a self-imposed responsibility (theme C). Many, especially partners, found setting boundaries challenging and wanted more focus on this subject in the education (D). In theme E, we explore how relatives reflected on their ability to cope in difficult situations by being diplomatic and strategic and drawing on the insights described in themes A-D.

conclusionsGroup-based psychoeducation for relatives of patients with BD was feasible and addressed core support needs, but adjustments could enhance its impact. In a large-group setting, participants could be divided into smaller discussion groups based on their relationship to the patient and/or the patient's BD type. Additionally, we propose incorporating 'diplomats with boundaries' as a positive caregiving model, conceptualized through our analysis.

trial registrationThe investigation was conducted as part of the R-Bipolar study registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT06176001, 19/12/2023. Submission for ethical approval was not required (Journal-nr.: 21063013).

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderFamilyHealth EducationPsychotherapy, GroupAdultAgedDenmarkFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchBipolar disorderCaregiversFamilyGroup-based psychoeducationParentsPartnerQualitative thematic analysisRelatives

Identifiers

PMID40890647
PMCPMC12400627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.