BACKGROUND: Relapse risk during the early years of first-episode psychosis (FEP) considerably increases the risk of chronicity. The effectiveness of family intervention for psychosis (FIp) for preventing relapse after FEP remains unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of FIp until 24 months of follow-up for preventing relapse and other relapse-related outcomes in patients following FEP. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane, PubMed, PsycINFO, and ProQuest databases in June 2018. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), sensitivity analyses, and publication bias were performed, comparing to treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU plus other psychosocial interventions. Outcomes assessed were relapse rates, duration of hospitalization, psychotic symptoms, and functionality. Risk ratios (RRs) and (standardized) mean differences (SMD; MD) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 2109 records retrieved, 14 (11 RCTs) were included. Pooled results showed that FIp was effective for preventing relapse (RR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.61) compared to TAU and/or other psychosocial interventions. It also proved effective when compared to TAU alone (RR = 0.36) and TAU plus other psychosocial interventions (RR = 0.48). FIp showed benefits in reducing duration of hospitalization (TAU, MD = -3.31; other interventions, MD = -4.57) and psychotic symptoms (TAU, SMD = -0.68), and increased functionality (TAU, SMD = 1.36; other interventions, SMD = 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that FIp is effective for reducing relapse rates, duration of hospitalization, and psychotic symptoms, and for increasing functionality in FEP patients up to 24 months. The study's main limitations were the inclusion of published research only; authors were not contacted for missing/additional data; and high heterogeneity regarding relapse definition was observed.
BACKGROUND: Relapse risk during the early years of first-episode psychosis (FEP) considerably increases the risk of chronicity. The effectiveness of family intervention for psychosis (FIp) for preventing relapse after FEP remains unknown. We assessed the effectiveness of FIp until 24 months of follow-up for preventing relapse and other relapse-related outcomes in patients following FEP. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane, PubMed, PsycINFO, and ProQuest databases in June 2018. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), sensitivity analyses, and publication bias were performed, comparing to treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU plus other psychosocial interventions. Outcomes assessed were relapse rates, duration of hospitalization, psychotic symptoms, and functionality. Risk ratios (RRs) and (standardized) mean differences (SMD; MD) were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 2109 records retrieved, 14 (11 RCTs) were included. Pooled results showed that FIp was effective for preventing relapse (RR = 0.42; 95% CI = 0.29 to 0.61) compared to TAU and/or other psychosocial interventions. It also proved effective when compared to TAU alone (RR = 0.36) and TAU plus other psychosocial interventions (RR = 0.48). FIp showed benefits in reducing duration of hospitalization (TAU, MD = -3.31; other interventions, MD = -4.57) and psychotic symptoms (TAU, SMD = -0.68), and increased functionality (TAU, SMD = 1.36; other interventions, SMD = 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that FIp is effective for reducing relapse rates, duration of hospitalization, and psychotic symptoms, and for increasing functionality in FEP patients up to 24 months. The study's main limitations were the inclusion of published research only; authors were not contacted for missing/additional data; and high heterogeneity regarding relapse definition was observed.
Authors: John F M Gleeson; Sue M Cotton; Mario Alvarez-Jimenez; Darryl Wade; Donna Gee; Kingsley Crisp; Tracey Pearce; Daniela Spiliotacopoulos; Belinda Newman; Patrick D McGorry Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Rikke Gry Secher; Carsten Rygaard Hjorthøj; Stephen F Austin; Anne Thorup; Pia Jeppesen; Ole Mors; Merete Nordentoft Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Christoph U Correll; Britta Galling; Aditya Pawar; Anastasia Krivko; Chiara Bonetto; Mirella Ruggeri; Thomas J Craig; Merete Nordentoft; Vinod H Srihari; Sinan Guloksuz; Christy L M Hui; Eric Y H Chen; Marcelo Valencia; Francisco Juarez; Delbert G Robinson; Nina R Schooler; Mary F Brunette; Kim T Mueser; Robert A Rosenheck; Patricia Marcy; Jean Addington; Sue E Estroff; James Robinson; David Penn; Joanne B Severe; John M Kane Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Douglas G Altman; Peter C Gøtzsche; Peter Jüni; David Moher; Andrew D Oxman; Jelena Savovic; Kenneth F Schulz; Laura Weeks; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-10-18
Authors: Marco Solmi; Giovanni Croatto; Giada Piva; Stella Rosson; Paolo Fusar-Poli; Jose M Rubio; Andre F Carvalho; Eduard Vieta; Celso Arango; Nicole R DeTore; Elizabeth S Eberlin; Kim T Mueser; Christoph U Correll Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 13.437
Authors: Julia Browne; A Simone Sanders; Michelle Friedman-Yakoobian; Margaret Guyer; Matcheri Keshavan; Bo Kim; Emily Kline Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-08 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Kristin Lie Romm; Liv Nilsen; Kristine Gjermundsen; Marit Holter; Anne Fjell; Ingrid Melle; Arne Repål; Fiona Lobban Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2020-07-28
Authors: Srividya N Iyer; Ashok Malla; Megan Pope; Sally Mustafa; Greeshma Mohan; Thara Rangaswamy; Norbert Schmitz; Ridha Joober; Jai Shah; Howard C Margolese; Padmavati Ramachandran Journal: Int J Ment Health Syst Date: 2022-01-10
Authors: Juliana Onwumere; Brendon Stubbs; Mary Stirling; David Shiers; Fiona Gaughran; Andrew S C Rice; Amanda C de C Williams; Whitney Scott Journal: Pain Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 7.926