↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Humour-based interventions for people with schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Humour-based interventions for people with schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013367.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuri Nakamura, Masahiro Banno, Kunihiro Kohmura, Hiraku Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka

Abstract

Humour-based interventions are defined as any intervention that promotes health and wellness by stimulating a playful discovery, expression, or appreciation of the absurdity or incongruity of life's situations. Humour-based interventions can be implemented in different settings, including hospitals, nursing homes and day care centres. They have been posed as an adjunct to usual care for people with schizophrenia, but a summary of the evidence is lacking. To examine the effects of humour-based interventions as an add-on intervention to standard care for people with schizophrenia. On 31 July 2019 and 10 February 2021 we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's study-based register of trials, which is based on CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.Gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and WHO ICTRP. We included all randomised controlled trials comparing humour-based interventions with active controls, other psychological interventions, or standard care for people with schizophrenia. We excluded studies fulfilling our prespecified selection criteria but without useable data from further quantitative synthesis. Two review authors independently inspected citations, selected studies, extracted data and appraised study quality, following the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For binary outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean differences (MDs) and their 95% CIs. We assessed risks of bias for included studies and created summary of findings tables using the GRADE approach. We included three studies in this review for qualitative synthesis, although one study did not report any relevant outcomes. We therefore include two studies (n = 96) in our quantitative synthesis. No data were available on the following prespecified primary outcomes: clinically-important change in general mental state, clinically-important change in negative symptoms, clinically-important change in overall quality of life, and adverse effects. As compared with active control, humour-based interventions may not improve the average endpoint score of a general mental state scale (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score: MD -1.70, 95% CI -17.01 to 13.61; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence); positive symptoms (PANSS positive symptom score: MD 0.00, 95% CI -2.58 to 2.58; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence), negative symptoms (PANSS negative symptom score: MD -0.70, 95% CI -4.22 to 2.82; 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence) and anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI): MD -2.60, 95% CI -5.76 to 0.56; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Due to the small sample size, we remain uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early as compared with active control (no event, 1 study, 30 participants; very low certainty of evidence). On the other hand, humour-based interventions may reduce depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory (BDI): MD -6.20, 95% CI -12.08 to -0.32; 1 study, 30 participants; low certainty of evidence). Compared with standard care, humour-based interventions may not improve  depressive symptoms (BDI second edition: MD 0.80, 95% CI -2.64 to 4.24; 1 study, 59 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of humour-based interventions on leaving the study early for any reason compared with standard care (risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.80; 1 study, 66 participants; very low certainty of evidence). We are currently uncertain whether the evidence supports the use of humour-based interventions in people with schizophrenia. Future research with rigorous and transparent methodology investigating clinically important outcomes is warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 25 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Unspecified 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 29 56%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,913,709
of 21,792,010 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,258
of 12,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,062
of 350,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,792,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.