↓ Skip to main content

Community-based psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in low and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, October 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
324 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Community-based psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia in low and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1516-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Asher, Vikram Patel, Mary J De Silva

Abstract

There is consensus that the treatment of schizophrenia should combine anti-psychotic medication and psychosocial interventions in order to address complex social, economic and health needs. It is recommended that family therapy or support; community-based rehabilitation; and/or self-help and support groups should be provided for people with schizophrenia in low and middle-income countries. The effectiveness of community-based psychosocial interventions in these settings is unclear. Studies evaluating community-based psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia were identified through database searching up to April 2016. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared the intervention group with a control group receiving treatment as usual including medication. Only studies set in low and middle-income countries were included. Random effects meta-analyses were performed separately for each intervention type. Eleven randomised controlled trials in five middle-income countries were identified, with a total of 1580 participants. The content of included interventions varied from single-faceted psychoeducational interventions, to multi-component rehabilitation-focused interventions, to case management interventions. A third of the included studies did not incorporate any community involvement in the intervention. The quality of evidence was often low. Amongst the seven studies that reported on symptom severity up to 18 months post intervention, the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) across all intervention types was 0.95 (95% CI 0.28, 1.61; P 0.005; I (2) = 95%; n = 862), representing a strong effect. A strong effect on symptom severity remained after excluding two studies with a high risk of bias (SMD 0.80; 95% CI 0.07, 1.53; P 0.03; I (2) = 94%; n = 676). Community-based psychosocial interventions may also have beneficial impacts on functioning (SMD 1.12; 95% CI 0.25, 2.00; P 0.01; I (2) = 94%; n = 511) and reducing hospital readmissions (SMD 0.68; 95% CI 0.27, 1.09; P 0.001; I(2) = 33%; n = 167). The limited evidence from low and middle-income countries supports the feasibility and effectiveness of community-based psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia, even in the absence of community mobilisation. Community-based psychosocial interventions should therefore be provided in these settings as an adjuvant service in addition to facility-based care for people with schizophrenia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users 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 324 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 324 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 15%
Student > Bachelor 32 10%
Researcher 31 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 10%
Other 16 5%
Other 55 17%
Unknown 111 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 18%
Psychology 54 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 11%
Social Sciences 21 6%
Sports and Recreations 5 2%
Other 30 9%
Unknown 121 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,569,165
of 24,265,140 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#976
of 5,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,909
of 332,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#9
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,265,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 332,869 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.