Cited by 95Family Caregiving in Mental IllnessCounseling, Therapy, and Family DynamicsPsychiatric care and mental health services

Why involve families in acute mental healthcare? A collaborative conceptual review

Open access
Dirik, Aysegul, Sandhu, Sima, Giacco, Domenico, Barrett, Katherine, Bennison, Gerry, Collinson, Sue, Priebe, Stefan·2017·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: Family involvement is strongly recommended in clinical guidelines but suffers from poor implementation. To explore this topic at a conceptual level, a multidisciplinary review team including academics, clinicians and individuals with lived experience undertook a review to explore the theoretical background of family involvement models in acute mental health treatment and how this relates to their delivery. Design: A conceptual review was undertaken, including a systematic search and narrative synthesis. Included family models were mapped onto the most commonly referenced underlying theories: the diathesis–stress model, systems theories and postmodern theories of mental health. Common components of the models were summarised and compared. Lastly, a thematic analysis was undertaken to explore the role of patients and families in the delivery of the approaches. Setting: General adult acute mental health treatment. Results: Six distinct family involvement models were identified: Calgary Family Assessment and Intervention Models, ERIC (Equipe Rapide d’Intervention de Crise), Family Psychoeducation Models, Family Systems Approach, Open Dialogue and the Somerset Model. Findings indicated that despite wide variation in the theoretical models underlying family involvement models, there were many commonalities in their components, such as a focus on communication, language use and joint decision-making. Thematic analysis of the role of patients and families identified several issues for implementation. This included potential harms that could emerge during delivery of the models, such as imposing linear ‘patient–carer’ relationships and the risk of perceived coercion. Conclusions: We conclude that future staff training may benefit from discussing the chosen family involvement model within the context of other theories of mental health. This may help to clarify the underlying purpose of family involvement and address the diverse needs and world views of patients, families and professionals in acute settings.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017680

Cites

85 of 85 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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [54]Heumann K, Janßen L, Ruppelt F A pilot study of peer support for relatives of individuals with severe mental health problems: effects on burden and quality of life. Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 2016; 64: 45– 53.
  2. [55]Seikkula J, Aaltonen J, Alakare B, et al Treating psychosis by means of open dialogue The reflective team in action. New York: Guildford Press, 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dirik, A., Sandhu, S., Giacco, D., Barrett, K., Bennison, G., Collinson, S., & Priebe, S.
Affiliations
  • Unit for Social and Community Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Centre for Mental Health Services Development, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-09
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
e017680
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2757731570
Cited by
95
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Research Trainees Coordinating Centre
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family Caregiving in Mental Illness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
family involvement, acute psychiatric care, ERIC, family psychoeducation, family systems approach, open dialogue, diathesis-stress model, systems theory, shared decision-making, coercion, employee training, guideline implementation
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adult, Mental Disorders, Communication, Decision Making, Family, Humans, Professional-Family Relations, Research Design

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