↓ Skip to main content

Challenges for group leaders working with families dealing with early psychosis: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, July 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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Challenges for group leaders working with families dealing with early psychosis: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0540-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liv Nilsen, Irene Norheim, Jan C. Frich, Svein Friis, Jan Ivar Røssberg

Abstract

Family work is one of the best researched psychosocial interventions for patients with chronic psychosis. However, family work is less studied for patients with a first episode psychosis and the studies have revealed contradicting results. To our knowledge, no previous studies have examined qualitatively group leaders' experiences with family work. In the present study we wanted to explore challenges faced by mental health professionals working as group leaders for family interventions with first episode psychosis patients. A qualitative exploratory study was carried out based on digitally recorded in-depth interviews and a focus group interview with nine experienced mental health professionals. The interviews were transcribed in a slightly modified verbatim mode and analysed by systematic text condensation. Challenges faced by group leaders was classified into six categories: (1) Motivating patients to participate, encouraging potential participants was demanding and time-consuming; (2) Selecting participants by identifying those who can form a functional group and benefit from the intervention; (3) Choosing group format to determine whether a single or multi-family group is best for the participants; (4) Preserving patient independence, while also encouraging them to participate in the intervention; (5) Adherence to the protocol, while customizing adjustments as needed; (6) Fostering good problem-solving by creating a fertile learning environment and choosing the most appropriate problem to solve. Group leaders face challenges related to recruitment and selection of participants for family work, as well as in conducting sessions. Awareness of these challenges could help health professionals more specifically to tailor the intervention to the specific needs of patients and their families.

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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 17 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 13%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Philosophy 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 20 26%
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 15 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,371,970
of 25,364,936 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,343
of 5,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,387
of 277,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#17
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,364,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,453 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 277,558 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 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.