↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Social skills programmes for schizophrenia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

10 tweeters
1 Facebook page
1 Google+ user


71 Dimensions

Readers on

293 Mendeley
Social skills programmes for schizophrenia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009006.pub2
Pubmed ID

Muhammad Qutayba Almerie, Muhammad Okba Al Marhi, Muhammad Jawoosh, Mohamad Alsabbagh, Hosam E Matar, Nicola Maayan, Hanna Bergman


Social skills programmes (SSP) are treatment strategies aimed at enhancing the social performance and reducing the distress and difficulty experienced by people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia and can be incorporated as part of the rehabilitation package for people with schizophrenia. The primary objective is to investigate the effects of social skills training programmes, compared to standard care, for people with schizophrenia. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (November 2006 and December 2011) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. We inspected references of all identified studies for further trials.A further search for studies has been conducted by the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group in 2015, 37 citations have been found and are currently being assessed by review authors. We included all relevant randomised controlled trials for social skills programmes versus standard care involving people with serious mental illnesses. We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD) and 95% CIs. We included 13 randomised trials (975 participants). These evaluated social skills programmes versus standard care, or discussion group. We found evidence in favour of social skills programmes compared to standard care on all measures of social functioning. We also found that rates of relapse and rehospitalisation were lower for social skills compared to standard care (relapse: 2 RCTs, n = 263, RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.79, very low quality evidence), (rehospitalisation: 1 RCT, n = 143, RR 0.53 CI 0.30 to 0.93, very low quality evidence) and participants' mental state results (1 RCT, n = 91, MD -4.01 CI -7.52 to -0.50, very low quality evidence) were better in the group receiving social skill programmes. Global state was measured in one trial by numbers not experiencing a clinical improvement, results favoured social skills (1 RCT, n = 67, RR 0.29 CI 0.12 to 0.68, very low quality evidence). Quality of life was also improved in the social skills programme compared to standard care (1 RCT, n = 112, MD -7.60 CI -12.18 to -3.02, very low quality evidence). However, when social skills programmes were compared to a discussion group control, we found no significant differences in the participants social functioning, relapse rates, mental state or quality of life, again the quality of evidence for these outcomes was very low. Compared to standard care, social skills training may improve the social skills of people with schizophrenia and reduce relapse rates, but at present, the evidence is very limited with data rated as very low quality. When social skills training was compared to discussion there was no difference on patients outcomes. Cultural differences might limit the applicability of the current results, as most reported studies were conducted in China. Whether social skills training can improve social functioning of people with schizophrenia in different settings remains unclear and should be investigated in a large multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 291 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 6%
Other 47 16%
Unknown 83 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 55 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 54 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 12%
Social Sciences 21 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 33 11%
Unknown 90 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 2023.
All research outputs
of 24,287,697 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,881 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,697 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,881 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 270,504 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.