Psychoeducational Multiple Family Groups: Four‐Year Relapse Outcome in Schizophrenia

McFarlane, William R.; Link, Bruce G.; Dushay, Robert A.; Marchal, Joanne; Crilly, John

doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1995.00127.x

Cited by 202 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The two studies that compared family treatment and routine care both found significantly lower relapse or rehospitalization rates associated with family treatment Zhang, Wang, Li, & Phillips, 1994). Three studies compared multiple-family groups and single-family interventions (Leff, Kuipers, Berkowitz, & Sturgeon, 1985;McFarlane, Link, Dushay, Marchal, & Crilly, 1995;McFarlane, Lukens, et al, 1995). The two studies by McFarlane et al reported lower relapse rates for the multiple-family group format than for single-family therapy (based on Anderson, Reiss, & Hogarty's, 1986, model), whereas Leff et al (1990) reported no differences between the two formats.…”

Section: Efficacy Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems.

Baucom¹,

Shoham²,

Mueser³

et al. 1998

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

497

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article evaluates the efficacy, effectiveness, and clinical significance of empirically supported couple and family interventions for treating marital distress and individual adult disorders, including anxiety disorders, depression, sexual dysfunctions, alcoholism and problem drinking, and schizophrenia. In addition to consideration of different theoretical approaches to treating these disorders, different ways of including a partner or family in treatment are highlighted: (a) partner-family-assisted interventions, (b) disorder-specific partner-family interventions, and (c)more general couple-family therapy. Findings across diagnostic groups and issues involved in applying efficacy criteria to these populations are discussed.Since the 1970s, there has been a major shift in knowledge regarding the effectiveness of couple-based and family-based interventions for treating adult mental health problems. During this period, various theoretical perspectives have been articulated, specific manual-based intervention strategies have been developed, and controlled treatment outcome investigations have explored a number of specific issues of importance. The current article examines the empirical status of these couple-and family-based interventions for treating (a) marital distress and (b) adult individual diagnosable disorders. More explicitly, the primary goal of this article is to use the criteria put forth by Chambless and Hollon (1998) to evaluate the efficacy, clinical significance, and effectiveness of various interventions that involve a couple or family format.The criteria provide a unifying framework for evaluating the wide variety of psychological interventions. As we reviewed the literature on couple-and family-based interventions, we became aware that there were a number of decisions that had to be made with regard to the application of these criteria. Given that other reviewers may have interpreted and applied the Chambless and Hollon (1998) guidelines in a different manner, we begin this We thank Emily Sartor for her assistance in the preparation of this article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Donald H. Baucom, Davie Hall CB 3270, Psychology Department, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3270. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to don_baucom@unc.edu.review by articulating how we have applied them so that the reader can better understand the bases of our conclusions.One of the major decisions that affects the empirical status of an intervention involves what investigations to include in reviewing the literature. In determining the efficacy status of a treatment, we restricted our consideration to published investigations. Attempts to obtain a comprehensive set of findings from conference presentations, unpublished dissertations, and so forth necessarily result in an incomplete and potentially skewed set of data. At times, unpublished findings are cited if mey help to make a certain point or clarify issues, but they are not considered in dete...

show abstract

Section: Efficacy Statusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems.

Baucom¹,

Shoham²,

Mueser³

et al. 1998

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

497

411

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Programs differ in organization and content (individual family psychoeducation, individual family psychoeducation with group psychoeducation for relatives, family psychoeducation groups 44,45 .…”

Section: Types Of Psychoeducation Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychoeducation for Psychotic Patients

Praško¹,

Vrbová²,

Látalová³

et al. 2011

Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Psychoeducation programs have been shown in the last two decades to significantly improve the post-hospital discharge care of individuals with schizophrenia by demonstrated effects on rehospitalization rates, compliance with medication and knowledge. The benefits of psychoeducation can be sustained for up to seven years although most studies have not shown such enduring benefit. Psychoeducation is a type of psychotherapeutic support that aims to provide broad and adequate information on psychotic disorders for both patients and their families.Method. The purpose of the group psychoeducational program at the Psychiatric clinic in Olomouc is to familiarize patients with the core of the disorder, explain the part played by pharmacotherapy, teach recognition of the warning signs of relapse, to advise on communication problems within families, and finally the training of social skills.Results. Patients perceive the program as meaningful and helpful in better understanding their lives. INTRODUCTIONSchizophrenia is a chronic psychiatric illness affecting 1% to 2% of the population. Unfortunately, suboptimal follow-through with treatment too often leads to a classic revolving-door pattern of relapse and rehospitalization. While the core intervention in schizophrenia remains antipsychotic medication; the limitations of medication alone in symptomatic, relapse prevention, and satisfaction/quality of life terms have long prompted interest in wider forms of management. This aside, in the CATIE study 1 , a naturalistic randomized-controlled trial comparing five antipsychotic compounds, 74% of all patients discontinued their original medication before the end of the 18 months of the first phase of the trial.One inherent deficit in schizophrenicia is an inability to engage appropriately in social and occupational activities. The debilitating effect of this is often a lasting feature of the illness, despite adequate psychopharmacological intervention, often isolating them and making it difficult for them to advocate appropriate social support or community services. Further, studies have found that there is a correlation between poor social functioning and relapse. One of the challenges of this area, is also wide interindividual variability although standardized measures have been developed to rate the social deficits. These assessments have become important tools in the determination of effective non-pharmacological treatment strategies. In addition to long-term pharmacotherapy, quality education is considered an additional important form of assistanc.Family caregivers report high levels of burden related to caring for their mentally ill family members 2 . They may not have the knowledge and skills necessary to take on the caring responsibilities. As a result, patient relapse and readmission are common 3 .Although no evidence of a definitive cause of schizophrenia is yet available, it can be reasonably controlled though the use of pharmacotherapy and psychosocial interventions. Relapse rates (measured by number of h...

show abstract

“…MFG has been found to improve the management of other psychiatric and neurological conditions (e.g., schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury) and decrease health care usage (Dyck et al, 2002;McFarlane, 2002;McFarlane, Link, Dushay, Marchal, & Crilly, 1995;Rodgers et al, 2007). In this intervention, we modified the standard MFG format of McFarlane (2002) to include formalized training in cognitive rehabilitation strategies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Rehabilitation Multi-family Group Intervention for Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Their Care-Partners

Schmitter‐Edgecombe

Dyck

2014

J Int Neuropsychol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is increasing need for early, pro-active programs that can delay dementia diagnosis and enhance well-being of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and their care-partners (i.e., care-dyads). This randomized controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of a combined cognitive rehabilitation and multi-family group treatment (CR-MFG) that was designed to facilitate adoption of newly learned cognitive strategies into the care-dyads everyday lives. Analyzed data included 23 care-dyads who participated in CR-MFG treatment and 23 care-dyads in standard care (SC). The 3-month intervention consisted of individual joining sessions, an educational workshop, and 20/twice weekly multifamily memory strategy training and problem-solving sessions. Everyday functioning, memory, and psychological functioning (i.e., quality-of-life, depression, coping) were assessed. The CR-MFG intervention was associated with significant post-test group differences and improved post-test performances by the MCI participants on performance-based measures of everyday functioning and neuropsychological tests of memory. There was also some suggestion that CR-MFG care-partners perceived positive change in the everyday functioning of the MCI participants. In contrast, no post-test group differences were found for either care-dyad member on the self-report psychological measures; care-partners in the treatment group did self-report improved coping behaviors at post-test. These 3-month results are preliminary but suggestive that CR-MFG may produce modest, practical everyday functional benefits for persons with MCI. (JINS, 2014, 20, 897-908)

show abstract

Psychoeducational Multiple Family Groups: Four‐Year Relapse Outcome in Schizophrenia

Cited by 202 publications

References 34 publications

Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems.

Empirically supported couple and family interventions for marital distress and adult mental health problems.

Psychoeducation for Psychotic Patients

Cognitive Rehabilitation Multi-family Group Intervention for Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Their Care-Partners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About