↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Psychoeducation for siblings of people with severe mental illness

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 Mendeley
Title
Psychoeducation for siblings of people with severe mental illness
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010540.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacqueline Sin, Cheryl D Jordan, Elizabeth A Barley, Claire Henderson, Ian Norman

Abstract

Many people with severe mental illness (SMI) have siblings. Siblings are often both natural agents to promote service users' recovery and vulnerable to mental ill health due to the negative impact of psychosis within the family. Despite a wealth of research evidence supporting the effectiveness of psychoeducation for service users with SMI and their family members, in reducing relapse and promoting compliance with treatment, siblings remain relatively invisible in clinical service settings as well as in research studies. If psychoeducational interventions target siblings and improve siblings' knowledge, coping with caring and overall wellbeing, they could potentially provide a cost-effective option for supporting siblings with resulting benefits for service users' outcomes. To assess the effectiveness of psychoeducation compared with usual care or any other intervention in promoting wellbeing and reducing distress of siblings of people affected by SMI.The secondary objective was, if possible, to determine which type of psychoeducation is most effective. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register and screened the reference lists of relevant reports and reviews (12th November 2013). We contacted trial authors for unpublished and specific data on siblings' outcomes. All relevant randomised controlled trials focusing on psychoeducational interventions targeting siblings of all ages (on their own or amongst other family members including service users) of individuals with SMI, using any means and formats of delivery, i.e. individual (family), groups, computer-based. Two review authors independently screened the abstracts and extracted data and two other authors independently checked the screening and extraction process. We contacted authors of trials to ascertain siblings' participation in the trials and seek sibling-specific data in those studies where siblings' data were grouped together with other participants' (most commonly other family members'/carers') outcomes. We calculated the risk difference (RD), its 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. We presented continuous data using the mean difference statistic (MD) and 95% CIs. We assessed risk of bias for the included study and rated quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We found 14 studies that included siblings amongst other family members in receipt of psychoeducational interventions. However, we were only able to include one small trial with relevant and available data (n = 9 siblings out of n = 84 family member/carer-participants) comparing psychoeducational intervention with standard care in a community care setting, over a duration of 21 months. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of psychoeducational interventions compared with standard care on 'siblings' quality of life' (n = 9, MD score 3.80 95% CI -0.26 to 7.86, low quality of evidence), coping with (family) burden (n = 9, MD -8.80 95% CI -15.22 to -2.34, low quality of evidence). No sibling left the study early by one year (n = 9, RD 0.00 CI -0.34 to 0.34, low quality of evidence). Low quality and insufficient evidence meant we were unable to determine the effects of psychoeducational interventions compared with standard care on service users' global mental state (n = 9, MD -0.60 CI -3.54 to 2.38, low quality of evidence), their frequency of re-hospitalisation (n = 9, MD -0.70 CI -2.46 to 1.06, low quality of evidence) or duration of inpatient stay (n = 9, MD -2.60 CI -6.34 to 1.14, low quality of evidence), whether their siblings received psychoeducation or not. No study data were available to address the other primary outcomes: 'siblings' psychosocial wellbeing', 'siblings' distress' and adverse effects. Most studies evaluating psychoeducational interventions recruited siblings along with other family members. However, the proportion of siblings in these studies was low and outcomes for siblings were not reported independently from those of other types of family members. Indeed, only data from one study with nine siblings were available for the review. The limited study data we obtained provides no clear good quality evidence to indicate psychoeducation is beneficial for siblings' wellbeing or for clinical outcomes of people affected by SMI. More randomised studies are justified and needed to understand the role of psychoeducation in addressing siblings' needs for information and support.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 333 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 10%
Student > Bachelor 33 10%
Researcher 27 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 6%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 132 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 48 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 14%
Social Sciences 15 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 1%
Other 27 8%
Unknown 137 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,385,107
of 26,311,549 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,987
of 13,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,362
of 280,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#131
of 264 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,311,549 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 280,064 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 264 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.