ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Exploring the preferences of multiple stakeholder groups for family involvement in early intervention services for psychosis: A cross-sectional mixed-methods study.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is consistent evidence that family involvement leads to improved outcomes in psychosis. However, less is known about various stakeholders' (patients, families, clinicians) preferences. This study aimed to understand stakeholders' views about involving families in care for youth experiencing early psychosis using a cross-sectional mixed-methods design. The study was conducted at an early intervention service for psychosis in Montreal. Nine participants (patients, family members, clinicians) were purposively recruited. They participated in a one-day workshop using nominal group technique, whose discussion was subjected first to thematic and then content analysis to develop statements/recommendations regarding family involvement, which were ranked by participants. Three themes were identified from the thematic analyses of the discussion: Meaning and value of family involvement, Factors influencing family involvement, and Preferred ways and methods of family involvement. Thereafter, 40 statements under 4 questions related to family involvement were extracted from the discussion and ranked by participants from 1-10 in decreasing order of importance through an e-survey. The ranking indicated stakeholder consensus that: families be involved during crises/relapse; maintaining contact with each other is the responsibility of treating teams and families; there be guidelines for family involvement; and even when patients are disinclined to involve families in treatment, teams could receive information from and share general information with families. Patients, families, and clinicians agreed that contact between families and treating teams needs to continue throughout treatment. There were differences among them about the method, frequency, and content of contacts, which were seen as varying based on clinical, familial, and developmental factors. While all agreed that consent/confidentiality be respected, there was consensus that these need not deter family involvement. Our findings highlight the value of trialogue(s) between patients, families and treating teams regarding family involvement in treatment.
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.