Cited by 33Digital Mental Health InterventionsSchizophrenia research and treatmentMental Health and Patient Involvement

Self-Help Interventions for Psychosis: A Meta-Analysis

Scott, Alexander J., Webb, Thomas L., Rowse, Georgina·2015·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Self-help has been shown to be an effective intervention for a wide range of mental health problems. However, there is less evidence on the efficacy of self-help for psychosis and, to date, there has been no systematic review. A search of bibliographic databases identified 24 relevant studies with a total sample size of N=1816. Ten studies adopted a repeated measures design and 14 an independent group design (including RCTs and quasi-experimental studies). Self-help interventions had, on average, a small-to-medium-sized effect on overall symptoms (d+=0.33, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.48). Sub-analyses revealed that self-help interventions had a small-to-medium-sized effect on positive symptoms (d+=0.42, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72), a small-to-medium-sized effect on negative symptoms (d+=0.37, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.66), and a small-sized effect on outcomes associated with the symptoms of psychosis such as quality of life (d+=0.13, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.24). Moderation analysis identified a number of factors that influenced treatment effects including the complexity of the intervention and amount of contact time. Self-help interventions for psychosis have a lot of potential and recommendations for further research are discussed.

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 · 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.05.002

Cites

154 of 157 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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, A. J., Webb, T. L., & Rowse, G.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Scott, Alexander J.
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-07
Volume
39
Pages
96-112
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W266051228
Cited by
33
References
156
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
self-help intervention, psychosis, schizophrenia, positive symptoms, negative symptoms, quality of life, intervention complexity, contact time, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychotic Disorders, Quality of Life, Self Care, Health Behavior

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