Cited by 144Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologySchizophrenia research and treatment

Psychological interventions for adults with bipolar disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Oud, Matthijs, Mayo-Wilson, Evan, Braidwood, Ruth, Schulte, Peter, Jones, Steven H., Morriss, Richard, Kupka, Ralph, Cuijpers, Pim +1 more·2016·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Psychological interventions may be beneficial in bipolar disorder. Aims: To evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions for adults with bipolar disorder. Method: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. Outcomes were meta-analysed using RevMan and confidence assessed using the GRADE method. Results: We included 55 trials with 6010 participants. Moderate-quality evidence associated individual psychological interventions with reduced relapses at post-treatment (risk ratio (RR) = 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.92) and follow-up (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.63–0.87), and collaborative care with a reduction in hospital admissions (RR =0.68, 95% CI 0.49–0.94). Low-quality evidence associated group interventions with fewer depression relapses at post-treatment and follow-up, and family psychoeducation with reduced symptoms of depression and mania. Conclusions: There is evidence that psychological interventions are effective for people with bipolar disorder. Much of the evidence was of low or very low quality thereby limiting our conclusions. Further research should identify the most effective (and cost-effective) interventions for each phase of this disorder.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.157123

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Individual psychoeducation of at least five sessions is a first-line intervention for relapse prevention based on level 2 evidence.

    “individual psychoeducation of at least five sessions would still be a first‐line intervention for relapse prevention, based on level 2 evidence.75, 79, 80”

    From Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments ( <scp>CANMAT</scp> ) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders ( <scp>ISBD</scp> ) 2018 guidelines for the management of patients with bipolar disorder (2018) · cites this paper as [79]

    The Individual psychological interventions section reports moderate-quality evidence that individual interventions, including psychoeducation among other therapies, reduced relapse risk. The Discussion likewise reports reduced relapse risk for individual psychological interventions. Neither passage establishes a minimum of five psychoeducation sessions, designates individual psychoeducation as first-line, or assigns it level 2 evidence. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Psychological interventions for bipolar disorders typically produce mixed outcomes and modest effects.

    “Psychological interventions for bipolar disorders typically produce mixed outcomes and modest effects.”

    From What are People's Experiences of a Novel Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Bipolar Disorders? A Qualitative Investigation with Participants on the TEAMS Trial. (2017) · cites this paper as Oud et al., 2016

    The Discussion reports mixed outcomes: some, but not all, interventions reduced relapse or hospital admissions, while effects on mania and several other outcomes were limited or inconclusive. It describes the reduction in depressive symptoms as possibly small, but also reports a 34% reduction in relapse risk for individual interventions and a substantial reduction with family psychoeducation. Thus, 'modest effects' overgeneralizes the findings. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 3

  1. [23]23. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Wiley Blackwell, 2008.
  2. [26]26. Nordic Cochrane Centre. Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.2. Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
  3. [32]32. Bernhard B. Wirksamkeit einer kognitiv-psychoedukativen Gruppen- intervention bei bipolaren Patienten [Effectiveness of cognitive psychoeducational group interventions in bipolar patients]. PhD dissertation. Faculty of Medicine, Ludwig Maximillians University, 2009.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Oud, M., Mayo-Wilson, E., Braidwood, R., Schulte, P., Jones, S. H., Morriss, R., Kupka, R., Cuijpers, P., & Kendall, T.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Oud, Matthijs
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2016-03
Volume
208
Issue
3
Pages
213-222
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2318692336
Cited by
144
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Trimbos-instituut
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
bipolar disorder, psychological intervention, relapse prevention, collaborative care, group intervention, family psychoeducation, depression, mania, hospitalization, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Bipolar Disorder, Counseling, Depression, Family, Family Therapy, Humans, Mental Health, Recurrence, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome

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