Cited by 95Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient Involvement

Social recovery therapy in combination with early intervention services for enhancement of social recovery in patients with first-episode psychosis (SUPEREDEN3): A single-blind, randomised controlled trial

Open access
Fowler, David, Hodgekins, Jo, French, Paul, Marshall, Max, Freemantle, Nick, McCrone, Paul, Everard, Linda, Lavis, Anna +5 more·2018·The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Provision of early intervention services has increased the rate of social recovery in patients with first-episode psychosis; however, many individuals have continuing severe and persistent problems with social functioning. We aimed to assess the efficacy of early intervention services augmented with social recovery therapy in patients with first-episode psychosis. The primary hypothesis was that social recovery therapy plus early intervention services would lead to improvements in social recovery. METHODS: We did this single-blind, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (SUPEREDEN3) at four specialist early intervention services in the UK. We included participants who were aged 16-35 years, had non-affective psychosis, had been clients of early intervention services for 12-30 months, and had persistent and severe social disability, defined as engagement in less than 30 h per week of structured activity. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated randomisation with permuted blocks (sizes of four to six), to receive social recovery therapy plus early intervention services or early intervention services alone. Randomisation was stratified by sex and recruitment centre (Norfolk, Birmingham, Lancashire, and Sussex). By necessity, participants were not masked to group allocation, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors. The primary outcome was time spent in structured activity at 9 months, as measured by the Time Use Survey. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN61621571. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2012, and June 20, 2014, we randomly assigned 155 participants to receive social recovery therapy plus early intervention services (n=76) or early intervention services alone (n=79); the intention-to-treat population comprised 154 patients. At 9 months, 143 (93%) participants had data for the primary outcome. Social recovery therapy plus early intervention services was associated with an increase in structured activity of 8·1 h (95% CI 2·5-13·6; p=0·0050) compared with early intervention services alone. No adverse events were deemed attributable to study therapy. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show a clinically important benefit of enhanced social recovery on structured activity in patients with first-episode psychosis who received social recovery therapy plus early intervention services. Social recovery therapy might be useful in improving functional outcomes in people with first-episode psychosis, particularly in individuals not motivated to engage in existing psychosocial interventions targeting functioning, or who have comorbid difficulties preventing them from doing so. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

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/s2215-0366(17)30476-5

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • In two studies, cut-off scores for social disability (≤30 hours per week in structured activities) and isolation (< 1 hour per day in recreational or social activities) were applied to determine participants' eligibility for the intervention, although neither reported how the cut-off scores were determined.

    “In two studies, cut-off scores for social disability (≤30 hours per week in structured activities) (53) and isolation (< 1 hour per day in recreational or social activities) (56) were applied to determine participants’ eligibility for the intervention, although neither reported how the cut-off scores were determined.”

    From Contributions of a time use perspective in community mental health practice: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Fowler et al. found that the SRT was effective in improving engagement in structured and economic activities.

    “Fowler et al. (53, 54) found that the SRT was effective in improving engagement in structured and economic activities.”

    From Contributions of a time use perspective in community mental health practice: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [53]

    The Results report that social recovery therapy plus early intervention services increased structured activity by 8.1 hours per week at 9 months compared with early intervention services alone. The Results provide only conditional, model-based evidence of a difference in constructive economic activity at 15 months; the completer analysis found no systematic difference. Thus the claim overstates the evidence for improved economic activity. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The TUS has been used to measure time spent in structured activities (excluding resting and sleep) as an indicator of overall functioning.

    “To date, the TUS has been variously used to measure time spent in structured activities (excluding resting and sleep) as an indicator of overall functioning (50, 52, 53); economic and structured activity participation (55); social participation (e.g. places visited and people with whom activities were completed) (56); and time use as an indicator of social recovery (54).”

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

1 of the 41 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [24]Gershuny J Time use surveys and the measurement of national well being 2011 Centre for Time Use Research Oxford
  2. [39]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Psychosis and schizophrenia in adults: treatment and management. Nice clinical guideline 178 2014 NICE London 32207892

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fowler, D., Hodgekins, J., French, P., Marshall, M., Freemantle, N., McCrone, P., Everard, L., Lavis, A., Jones, P. B., Amos, T., Singh, S., Sharma, V., & Birchwood, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University of Chester (GB)
Corresponding author
Fowler, David
Venue
The Lancet Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-01
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
41-50
ISSN
2215-0366 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771218756
Cited by
95
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3
FWCI
8.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ChesterRep (University of Chester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0109-10074, 10/104/501)
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research
  • Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care - Greater Manchester
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
early intervention services, first-episode psychosis, social recovery, social functioning, structured activities, social dysfunction, non-affective psychosis, young adults, functional recovery, time use survey, community mental health services, peer support
MeSH terms
Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Mental Health Services, Psychotic Disorders, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome, Early Medical Intervention, Social Skills

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