Cited by 737Family Caregiving in Mental IllnessSchizophrenia research and treatmentCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics

Family intervention for schizophrenia

Open access
Pharoah, Fiona, Mari, Jair, Rathbone, John, Wong, Winson·2006·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People with schizophrenia from families that express high levels of criticism, hostility, or over involvement, have more frequent relapses than people with similar problems from families that tend to be less expressive of emotions. Forms of psychosocial intervention, designed to reduce these levels of expressed emotions within families are now widely used. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effects of family psychosocial interventions in community settings for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like conditions compared to standard care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated previous searches by searching The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (November 2002 and June 2005), searched references of all new included studies for further trial citations, and contacted authors of trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised or quasi-randomised studies focusing primarily on families of people with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder that compared community-orientated family-based psychosocial intervention with standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently extracted data and calculated fixed effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary data, and, where appropriate, the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD). MAIN RESULTS: This 2005-6 update adds data of 15 additional trials (1765 participants, 43% of the total 4124). Family intervention may decrease the frequency of relapse (n=857, 16 RCTs, RR 0.71 CI 0.6 to 0.8, NNT 8 CI 6 to 11), although some small but negative studies may not have been identified by the search. Family intervention may also reduce hospital admission (8 RCTs, n=481, RR 0.78 CI 0.6 to 1.0, NNT 8 CI 6 to 13)--and this finding is a change to the previous equivocal data reported in 2002. Family intervention may also encourage compliance with medication (n=369, 7 RCTs, RR 0.74 CI 0.6 to 0.9, NNT 7 CI 4 to 19) but does not obviously affect the tendency of individuals/families to drop out of care (n=481, 6 RCTs, RR 0.86 CI 0.5 to 1.4). It may improve general social impairment and the levels of expressed emotion within the family. We did not find data to suggest that family intervention either prevents or promotes suicide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians, researchers, policy makers and recipients of care cannot be confident of the effects of family intervention from the findings of this review. Further data from already completed trials could greatly inform practice and more trials are justified as long as their participants, interventions and outcomes are applicable to routine care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd000088.pub2

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Family work in psychosis improves relationships through problem-solving and reduces service-user relapse.

    “Family work in psychosis, which improves relationships through problem-solving, reduces service user relapse.”

    From Cognitive model of caregiving in psychosis (2010) · cites this paper as [55]

  • Most improvement from family intervention has been in reducing service-user relapses.

    “However, most improvement has been in reducing service user relapses.54,55”

    From Cognitive model of caregiving in psychosis (2010) · cites this paper as [55]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pharoah, F., Mari, J., Rathbone, J., & Wong, W.
Affiliations
  • Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Huddersfield Royal Infirmary (GB)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Published
2006-10-18
Issue
12
Pages
CD000088-CD000088
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1801862032
Cited by
737
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 55 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 52
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Keywords
family intervention, schizophrenia, expressed emotion, relapse prevention, hospitalization, medication adherence, social dysfunction, community-based care, schizoaffective disorder, family involvement in treatment, treatment discontinuation, family involvement in care planning, family involvement in decision-making
MeSH terms
Family Relations, Family Therapy, Humans, Schizophrenia, Social Support, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Expressed Emotion, Secondary Prevention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review