Long-Term Outcome of Network Therapy

Schoenfeld, Paul; Halevy, Julia; Velden, Elizabeth Hemley-van der; Ruhf, Lawrence

doi:10.1176/ps.37.4.373

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rapid dissemination of crisis intervention models suggests they have been successful methods of treatment for psychiatric crises. Supporting this is much research suggesting that crisis intervention models are beneficial in that they reduce hospital admissions by up to 50%, are more cost-effective, and reduce the stigma of institutionalisation for both the sufferer and their family (Hoult 1984a; Hoult 1984b; Hoult 1986; Lamb 1979; Schoenfeld 1986; Stein 1978; Test 1978). In addition, early intervention with immediate reduction of psychotic symptoms is said to be beneficial for the long-term prognoses of these illnesses (McGorry 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

Murphy

Irving

Adams

et al. 2012

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution. Objectives To review the effects of crisis intervention models for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared with ‘standard care’. Search methods We updated the 1998, 2003 and 2006 searches with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Register of trials (2010) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses. Data collection and analysis We independently extracted data from these trials and we estimated risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assumed that people who left early from a trial had no improvement. Main results Three new studies have been found since the last review in 2006 to add to the five studies already included in this review. None of the previously included studies investigated crisis intervention alone; all used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. However, one of the new studies focuses purely on crisis intervention as provided by Crisis Resolution Home Teams within the UK; the two other new studies investigated crisis houses i.e. residential alternatives to hospitalisation providing home-like environments. Crisis intervention appears to reduce repeat admissions to hospital after the initial ‘index’ crises investigated in the included studies, this was particularly so for mobile crisis teams supporting patients in their own homes. Crisis intervention reduces the number of people leaving the study early, reduces family burden, is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families and at three months after crisis, mental state is superior to standard care. We found no differences in death outcomes. Some studies found crisis interventions to be more cost effective than hospital care but all numerical data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, complications with medication or number of relapses were available. Authors’ conclusions Care based on crisis intervention principles, with or without an ongoing home care package, appears to be a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are still needed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

Murphy

Irving

Adams

et al. 2012

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinical work with a social network has been described in connection with many kinds of psychiatric and social problems: e.g. schizophrenia, borderline (Kliman, & Trimble, 1983;Morin, & Seidman, 1986;Schoenfeld, Halevy, van der Velden, & Ruhf, 1986), behaviour problems in school children (Svedhem, 1994), criminal and acting-out behaviour in teenagers and teenage gangs, children in single-parent families (Samuelsson, 1995), work with multiproblem families in crisis (Klefbeck, Bergerhed, Forsberg, Hultkrantz-Jeppson, & Marklund, 1987) and family therapeutic work with larger systems (Imber-Black, 1988). According to social ecology theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the influence of the environment operates not only through the family, but also directly influences the child from an early age.…”

Section: Theoretical Background: Network Therapy Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Model for Change at the Outpatient–Inpatient Interface in Child Psychiatry

Sourander

Piha

2000

Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe a treatment model linking child psychiatric inpatient treatment with the professional outpatient network. The child, the family and the ward community together are seen as an extended therapeutic system. The ward subsystem interacts with both the family system and the professional network. A network meeting on admission brings together the previous outpatient treatment efforts and inpatient treatment plans, formulating new solutions and identifying family strengths. A network meeting at discharge creates a supportive outpatient network of local professionals, aware of each other's intentions and efforts.

show abstract

“…Some scholars suggest that family therapy and the FGC model have a lot in common (Holland & O'Neill, 2006;Holland & Rivett, 2008). Family and network therapies typically aim to mobilize social support, improve dysfunctional interaction patterns, reduce destructive communication styles and reinforce more direct, open and honest communication (Lundsbye, Sandell, Währborg, Fälth, & Holmberg, 2010;Schoenfeld, Halevy, Hemley-van der Welden, & Ruhf, 1986). Accordingly, these therapies often seek to establish an accepting attitude between family/network members and a willingness to solve conflicts (Lundsbye et al, 2010;Schoenfeld et al, 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic features of the family group conference model when applied for long-term social assistance recipients

Johansen

2020

Journal of Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore long-term social assistance recipients´experiences with family group conferences (FGC). Fifteen Norwegian long-term (> 6 months) social assistance recipients whom had arranged an FGC were interviewed. There were nine men and six women, age 24-64 years. The findings show that the FGC may have therapeutic features when applied in a social service context. Three features associated with family/network therapy were found: Self-disclosure, dialogic communication and improved family relationships. The possible therapeutic function of the FGC when applied for adults is potent in a social work context, as solving family conflicts and/or improving family interaction may be a prerequisite in order to achieve other desired changes among many long-term social assistance recipients.

show abstract

Long-Term Outcome of Network Therapy

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses

A Model for Change at the Outpatient–Inpatient Interface in Child Psychiatry

Therapeutic features of the family group conference model when applied for long-term social assistance recipients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About