P Solomon1, J Draine, E Mannion, M Meisel. 1. School of Social Work at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA. solomonp@ssw.upenn.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the hypothesis that families of adults with severe mental illness who participate in either a group familyeducation workshop or individual family consultation will try to seek more assistance from community services than those in a control group assigned to a waiting list. METHODS: A total of 225 family members who agreed to participate in the study were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a ten-week group workshop, individual family consultation, or a waiting list (control group). Family members were interviewed about the extent of their contact with mental health professionals, providers, and community resources at baseline, termination of the interventions, and at six months after termination. RESULTS: No differences were found between conditions in the extent of family members' contact with three types of services: conventional, psychosocial, and ancillary mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the educational interventions produced any change in behaviors of families seeking advice and assistance on behalf of their ill relative from the three types of services examined. Modifications in the interventions may be worthwhile. Increasing family members' contacts with community resources on behalf of their ill relative may increase the benefits of the intervention to the family as well as to the ill relative.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the hypothesis that families of adults with severe mental illness who participate in either a group family education workshop or individual family consultation will try to seek more assistance from community services than those in a control group assigned to a waiting list. METHODS: A total of 225 family members who agreed to participate in the study were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a ten-week group workshop, individual family consultation, or a waiting list (control group). Family members were interviewed about the extent of their contact with mental health professionals, providers, and community resources at baseline, termination of the interventions, and at six months after termination. RESULTS: No differences were found between conditions in the extent of family members' contact with three types of services: conventional, psychosocial, and ancillary mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the educational interventions produced any change in behaviors of families seeking advice and assistance on behalf of their ill relative from the three types of services examined. Modifications in the interventions may be worthwhile. Increasing family members' contacts with community resources on behalf of their ill relative may increase the benefits of the intervention to the family as well as to the ill relative.