ArticleSchizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
Feasibility and acceptability study of an engagement intervention for family members in early intervention programs for psychosis.
Article in Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite evidence supporting the involvement of family members in early-intervention services for psychosis, rates of family engagement have been relatively low, and disparities exist. This study investigated the acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary impact of Family Motivational Engagement Strategy (FAMES) with family members of clients enrolled in coordinated specialty care (CSC). A feasibility and acceptability pilot study of FAMES was conducted in five CSC programs for FEP using a modified stepped-wedge design. FAMES consists of brief weekly contacts based on communication preferences (i.e., phone, text messages, email) and the use of culturally responsive strategies over 12 weeks. Assessments were completed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability, and secondary outcomes were engagement in FAMES and CSC. Forty-three participants were recruited (approximately 85% of the target recruitment sample of 50) and 72% (n = 31) completed all 12 weeks. Participants reported high rates of satisfaction with FAMES. Regarding engagement, 86% of scheduled FAMES appointments were attended, and no significant ethnoracial differences in engagement were observed. Exploratory analyses revealed engagement in FAMES was associated with engagement in CSC. Findings demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of delivering FAMES within CSC settings for family members/support persons. A subsequent study is needed to examine the efficacy and real-world implementation of FAMES.
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.