Family-based interventions versus standard care for people with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: People with schizophrenia often experience long-term psychosocial disabilities and frequent relapse. Family plays a key role in caring for ill relatives, which in turn probably contributes to high levels of distress and burdens for the family. Family-based interventions have been developed and applied to family members and their relatives with schizophrenia to improve their outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was last updated in 2011, which has been split into this review, one on group- versus individual-based family interventions and one on family-based cognitive versus behavioural management interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families compared with standard care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases from inception until April 2023: CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Clinicaltrials.gov, SinoMed, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP). We also searched the reference lists of included studies and accessible reviews for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of family-based interventions for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families and reported at least one patient's and one family member's outcomes. In this update, we only investigated standard care as the comparator. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for each study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs. We pooled data and estimated effects with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We judged the certainty of evidence using GRADEpro GDT. We divided the outcomes into short-term (≤ 1 month postintervention), medium-term (> 1 to 6 months postintervention), and long-term follow-up (> 6 months postintervention), if available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 26 RCTs in this review, with 1985 people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders, and 2056 family members. Most family-based interventions were conducted on a weekly or biweekly basis, with duration ranging from five weeks to two years. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies given that we judged all studies at high risk of performance bias and several studies at high risk of detection, attrition or reporting bias. Low-certainty evidence indicated that family-based interventions may reduce patients' relapse at one month or less postintervention (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.89; 4 RCTs, 229 participants). We downgraded the evidence by two levels due to imprecision (small number of participants) and high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. Compared to standard care, family-based interventions probably reduce caregiver burden at one month or less postintervention (MD -5.84, 95% CI -6.77 to -4.92; 8 RCTs, 563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may result in more family members shifting from high to low expressed emotion (RR 3.90, 95% CI 1.11 to 13.71; 2 RCTs, 72 participants; low-certainty evidence). Family interventions may result in little to no difference in patients' death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.32; 6 RCTs, 304 participants; low-certainty evidence) and hospital admission (≤ 1 month postintervention; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29; 2 RCTs, 153 participants; low-certainty evidence) in comparison with standard care. Due to the heterogeneous measures and various follow-up periods, we were unable to provide pooled effect estimates for patients' compliance with medication and quality of life. We were very uncertain whether family interventions resulted in enhanced compliance with medication and improved quality of life for patients. We downgraded the evidence to very low certainty due to high risk of bias across studies, inconsistency (different directions of effects across studies), and imprecision (small number of participants or CIs of most studies including the possibility of no effect). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review synthesised the latest evidence on family interventions versus standard care for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families. This review suggests that family interventions might improve patients' outcomes (e.g. relapse) and families' outcomes (e.g. caregiver burden and expressed emotion), with little to no difference in patients' hospital admission and adverse effects in terms of death. However, evidence on patients' compliance with medication and quality of life was very uncertain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low certainty. Future large and well-designed RCTs are needed to provide more reliable evaluation of effects of family interventions in people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like disorders and their families.

Self-Harm and Suicide Rates Before and After an Early Intervention Program for Patients With First-Episode Schizophrenia.

Importance: Evidence on the association of early intervention services (EISs) with self-harm and suicide among patients with first-episode schizophrenia (FES) at older than 25 years is lacking. Objective: To examine changes in self-harm and suicide rates among patients with FES before and after the implementation of an EIS program. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study conducted among 37 040 patients aged 15 to 64 years with FES between January 1, 2001, and March 31, 2020, used electronic medical records from the Hong Kong Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System. All patients were followed up from the first diagnosis of schizophrenia (the index date) until the date of their death or the end of the study period (March 31, 2021), whichever came first. Statistical analysis was performed from July to November 2023. Exposure: The EIS extended the Early Assessment Service for Young People With Early Psychosis (EASY) program from patients aged 15 to 25 years to those aged 15 to 64 years (EASY Plus). The exposure was the implementation of the EASY Plus program in April 2011. The exposure period was defined as between April 2012 and March 2021 for the 1-year-time-lag analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes were monthly rates of self-harm and suicide among patients with FES before and after the implementation of the EASY Plus program. Interrupted time series analysis was used for the main analysis. Results: This study included 37 040 patients with FES (mean [SD] age at onset, 39 [12] years; 82.6% older than 25 years; 53.0% female patients). The 1-year-time-lag analysis found an immediate decrease in self-harm rates among patients aged 26 to 44 years (rate ratio [RR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.59-1.00]) and 45 to 64 years (RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.49-1.00]) and among male patients (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.56-0.91]). A significant long-term decrease in self-harm rates was found for all patients with FES (patients aged 15-25 years: RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]; patients aged 26-44 years: RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-0.99]; patients aged 45-64 years: RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]). Suicide rates decreased immediately after the implementation of the EASY Plus program among patients aged 15 to 25 years (RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.14-0.77]) and 26 to 44 years (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.20-0.73]). Compared with the counterfactual scenario, the EASY Plus program might have led to 6302 fewer self-harm episodes among patients aged 26 to 44 years. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of the EASY Plus program suggests that the extended EIS was associated with reduced self-harm and suicide rates among all patients with FES, including those older than 25 years. These findings emphasize the importance of developing tailored interventions for patients across all age ranges to maximize the benefits of EISs.