In recent years, there has been a steadily increasing recognition of the need to improve the cultural competence of services and cultural adaptation of interventions so that every individual can benefit from evidence-based care. There have been attempts at culturally adapting evidence-based interventions for mental health problems, and a few meta-analyses have been published in this area. This is, however, a much debated subject. Furthermore, there is a lack of a comprehensive review of meta-analyses and literature reviews that provide guidance to policy makers and clinicians. This review summarizes the current meta-analysis literature on culturally adapted interventions for mental health disorders to provide a succinct account of the current state of knowledge in this area, limitations, and guidance for the future research.

The adaptation process can be described within a framework that serves as a benchmark for development or assessment of future adaptations. Culturally adapted interventions were more efficacious than usual treatment in proportion to the degree of adaptation. There is insufficient evidence to show that adapted interventions are better than non-adapted interventions. Features of context, intervention and design influenced efficacy. Investigating whether adaptation improves efficacy, most importantly amongst ethnic minorities, requires better designed trials with comparisons against unadapted interventions.

PurposeTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the strength of associations between social network size and clinical and functional outcomes in schizophrenia.MethodStudies were identified from a systematic search of electronic databases (EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) from January 1970 to June 2016. Eligible studies included peer-reviewed English language articles that examined associations between a quantitative measure of network size and symptomatic and/or functional outcome in schizophrenia-spectrum diagnoses.ResultsOur search yielded 16 studies with 1,929 participants. Meta-analyses using random effects models to calculate pooled effect sizes (Hedge’s g) found that smaller social network size was moderately associated with more severe overall psychiatric symptoms (N = 5, n = 467, g = − 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = − 0.875, − 0.184, p = 0.003) and negative symptoms (N = 8, n = 577, g = − 0.75, 95% CI = − 0.997, − 0.512, p = 0.000). Statistical heterogeneity was observed I2 = 63.04%; I2 = 35.75%,) which could not be explained by low-quality network measures or sample heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. There was no effect for positive symptoms (N = 7, n = 405, g = − 0.19, 95% CI = 0.494, 0.110, p = 0.213) or social functioning (N = 3, n = 209, g = 0.36, 95% CI = − 0.078, 0.801, p = 0.107). Narrative synthesis suggested that larger network size was associated with improved global functioning, but findings for affective symptoms and quality of life were mixed.ConclusionPsychosocial interventions which support individuals to build and maintain social networks may improve outcomes in schizophrenia. The review findings are cross-sectional and thus causal direction cannot be inferred. Further research is required to examine temporal associations between network characteristics and outcomes in schizophrenia and to test theoretical models relating to explanatory or mediating mechanisms.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00127-018-1552-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Therapeutic alliance is a key predictor of therapy outcomes. Alliance may be particularly pertinent for people with schizophrenia as this group often have a history of interpersonal trauma and relationship difficulties including difficult relationships with mental health staff. This review aimed to determine (a) the quality of therapeutic alliance between people with schizophrenia and their therapists; (b) whether alliance predicts therapeutic outcomes; and (c) variables associated with alliance. Databases were searched from inception up to April 2015. The search yielded 4,586 articles, resulting in 26 eligible studies, involving 18 independent samples. Weighted average client and therapist Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form total scores were 64.51 and 61.26, respectively. There was evidence that alliance predicts overall psychotic symptomatic outcomes and preliminary evidence for alliance predicting rehospitalization, medication use, and self-esteem outcomes. There was evidence for specific client-related factors being linked to different perspectives of alliance. For example, poorer insight and previous sexual abuse were associated with worse client-rated alliance, whereas baseline negative symptoms were associated with worse therapist-rated alliance. Therapist and therapy-related factors, including therapists' genuineness, trustworthiness, and empathy were associated with better client-rated alliance, whereas suitability for therapy, homework compliance, and attendance were associated with better therapist-rated alliance. Key clinical implications include the need to consider alliance from both client and therapist perspectives during therapy and training and supervision to enhance therapist qualities that foster good alliance. Future research requires longitudinal studies with larger samples that include pan-theoretical, well-validated alliance measures to determine causal predictor variables.

Therapist attachment style has the potential to influence therapeutic alliance and client outcome. Improvements in therapeutic practice might be achieved if therapists have greater knowledge of their own attachment styles and how these interact with their clients' attachment styles to influence the psychotherapy relationship and outcomes. From the outset of their careers, therapists should receive training and supervision to enhance the awareness of their individual attachment experiences and how these play out during the therapeutic process.

BackgroundAfrican-Caribbeans in the UK have the highest schizophrenia incidence and greatest inequity in access to mental health services of all ethnic groups. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights this crisis in care and urgent need to improve evidence-based mental healthcare, experiences of services and outcomes for this group. Family intervention (FI) is clinically and cost-effective for the management of schizophrenia but it is rarely offered. Evidence for FI with minority ethnic groups generally, and African-Caribbeans in particular, is lacking. This study aims to test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering Culturally-adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) to African-Caribbean service users diagnosed with schizophrenia.Methods/DesignThis is a feasibility cohort design study. Over a 12-month intervention period, 30 service users and their families, recruited from hospital and community settings, will receive ten one-hourly sessions of CaFI. Where biological families are absent, access to the intervention will be optimised through ‘family support members’; trusted individuals nominated by service users or study volunteers.We shall collect data on eligibility, uptake, retention and attrition and assess the utility and feasibility of collecting various outcome measures including readmission, service engagement, working alliance, clinical symptoms and functioning, perceived criticism, psychosis knowledge, familial stress and economic costs. Measures will be collected at baseline, post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up using validated questionnaires and standardised interviews. Admission rates and change in care management will be rated by independent case note examination. Variability in the measures will inform sample size estimates for a future trial. Independent raters will assess fidelity to the intervention in 10 % of sessions. Feedback at the end of each session along with thematically-analysed qualitative interviews will examine CaFI’s acceptability to service users, families and healthcare professionals.DiscussionThis innovative response to inequalities in mental healthcare experienced by African-Caribbeans diagnosed with schizophrenia might improve engagement in services, access to evidence-based interventions and clinical outcomes. Successful implementation of CaFI in this group could pave the way for better engagement and provision across marginalised groups and therefore has potentially important implications for commissioning and service delivery in ethnically diverse populations. This study will demonstrate whether the approach is feasible and acceptable and can be implemented with fidelity in different settings.

BackgroundAfrican-Caribbean people in the UK experience the highest incidence of schizophrenia and the greatest inequity in mental health care. There is an urgent need to improve their access to evidence-based care and outcomes. Family intervention (FI) is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-approved psychosocial intervention. Although clinically effective and cost-effective for schizophrenia, it is rarely offered. Evidence for any research into FI is lacking for ethnic minority people generally and for African-Caribbean people specifically.Aims(1) To assess the feasibility of delivering a novel, culturally appropriate psychosocial intervention within a ‘high-risk’ population to improve engagement and access to evidence-based care. (2) To test the feasibility and acceptability of delivering FI via ‘proxy families’.DesignA mixed-methods, feasibility cohort study, incorporating focus groups and an expert consensus conference.SettingTwo mental health trusts in north-west England.ParticipantsWe recruited a convenience sample of 31 African-Caribbean service users. Twenty-six family units [service users, relatives/family support members (FSMs) or both] commenced therapy. Half of the service users (n = 13, 50%), who did not have access to their biological families, participated by working with FSMs.InterventionsAn extant FI model was culturally adapted with key stakeholders using a literature-derived framework [Culturally adapted Family Intervention (CaFI)]. Ten CaFI sessions were offered to each service user and associated family.Main outcome measuresRecruitment (number approached vs. number consented), attendance (number of sessions attended), attrition (number of dropouts at each time point), retention (proportion of participants who completed therapy sessions), and completeness of outcome measurement.ResultsOf 74 eligible service users, 31 (42%) consented to take part in the feasibility trial. The majority (n = 21, 67.7%) were recruited from community settings, seven (22.6%) were recruited from rehabilitation settings and three (9.7%) were recruited from acute wards. Twenty-four family units (92%) completed all 10 therapy sessions. The proportion who completed treatment was 77.42% (24/31). The mean number of sessions attended was 7.90 (standard deviation 3.96 sessions) out of 10. It proved feasible to collect a range of outcome data at baseline, post intervention and at the 3-month follow-up. The rating of sessions and the qualitative findings indicated that CaFI was acceptable to service users, families, FSMs and health-care professionals.LimitationsThe lack of a control group and the limited sample size mean that there is insufficient power to assess efficacy. The findings are not generalisable beyond this population.ConclusionsIt proved feasible to culturally adapt and test FI with a sample of African-Caribbean service users and their families. Our study yielded high rates of recruitment, attendance, retention and data completion. We delivered CaFI via FSMs in the absence of biological families. This novel aspect of the study has implications for other groups who do not have access to their biological families. We also demonstrated the feasibility of collecting a range of outcomes to inform future trials and confirmed CaFI’s acceptability to key stakeholders. These are important findings. If CaFI can be delivered to the group of service users with the most serious and persistent disparities in schizophrenia care, it has the potential to be modified for and delivered to other underserved groups.Future workA fully powered, multicentre trial, comparing CaFI with usual care, is planned.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN94393315.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract