Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group ...

Electronic data

  • 1471 244X 11 114

    Rights statement: © 2011 Morriss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Final published version, 303 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder. / Morriss, Richard; Lobban, Fiona; Jones, Steven; Riste, Lisa; Peters, Sarah; Roberts, Christopher; Davies, Linda; Mayes, Debbie.

In: BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 11, 114, 21.07.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{9583dcb982044fc7a3748be1fc96cb80,
title = "Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder.",
abstract = "Background: Non-didactically delivered curriculum based group psychoeducation has been shown to be more effective than both group support in a specialist mood disorder centre in Spain (with effects lasting up to five years), and treatment as usual in Australia. It is unclear whether the specific content and form of group psychoeducation is effective or the chance to meet and work collaboratively with other peers. The main objective of this trial is to determine whether curriculum based group psychoeducation is more clinically and cost effective than unstructured peer group support. Methods/design: Single blind two centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 21 sessions group psychoeducation versus 21 sessions group peer support in adults with bipolar 1 or 2 disorder, not in current episode but relapsed in the previous two years. Individual randomisation is to either group at each site. The groups are carefully matched for the number and type of therapists, length and frequency of the interventions and overall aim of the groups but differ in content and style of delivery. The primary outcome is time to next bipolar episode with measures of the therapeutic process, barriers and drivers to the effective delivery of the interventions and economic analysis. Follow up is for 96 weeks after randomisation. Discussion: The trial has features of both an efficacy and an effectiveness trial design. For generalisability in England it is set in routine public mental health practice with a high degree of expert patient involvement. ",
author = "Richard Morriss and Fiona Lobban and Steven Jones and Lisa Riste and Sarah Peters and Christopher Roberts and Linda Davies and Debbie Mayes",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2011 Morriss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.",
year = "2011",
month = jul,
day = "21",
doi = "10.1186/1471-244X-11-114",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
journal = "BMC Psychiatry",
issn = "1471-244X",
publisher = "NLM (Medline)",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pragmatic randomised controlled trial of group psychoeducation versus group support in the maintenance of bipolar disorder.

AU - Morriss, Richard

AU - Lobban, Fiona

AU - Jones, Steven

AU - Riste, Lisa

AU - Peters, Sarah

AU - Roberts, Christopher

AU - Davies, Linda

AU - Mayes, Debbie

N1 - © 2011 Morriss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PY - 2011/7/21

Y1 - 2011/7/21

N2 - Background: Non-didactically delivered curriculum based group psychoeducation has been shown to be more effective than both group support in a specialist mood disorder centre in Spain (with effects lasting up to five years), and treatment as usual in Australia. It is unclear whether the specific content and form of group psychoeducation is effective or the chance to meet and work collaboratively with other peers. The main objective of this trial is to determine whether curriculum based group psychoeducation is more clinically and cost effective than unstructured peer group support. Methods/design: Single blind two centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 21 sessions group psychoeducation versus 21 sessions group peer support in adults with bipolar 1 or 2 disorder, not in current episode but relapsed in the previous two years. Individual randomisation is to either group at each site. The groups are carefully matched for the number and type of therapists, length and frequency of the interventions and overall aim of the groups but differ in content and style of delivery. The primary outcome is time to next bipolar episode with measures of the therapeutic process, barriers and drivers to the effective delivery of the interventions and economic analysis. Follow up is for 96 weeks after randomisation. Discussion: The trial has features of both an efficacy and an effectiveness trial design. For generalisability in England it is set in routine public mental health practice with a high degree of expert patient involvement.

AB - Background: Non-didactically delivered curriculum based group psychoeducation has been shown to be more effective than both group support in a specialist mood disorder centre in Spain (with effects lasting up to five years), and treatment as usual in Australia. It is unclear whether the specific content and form of group psychoeducation is effective or the chance to meet and work collaboratively with other peers. The main objective of this trial is to determine whether curriculum based group psychoeducation is more clinically and cost effective than unstructured peer group support. Methods/design: Single blind two centre cluster randomised controlled trial of 21 sessions group psychoeducation versus 21 sessions group peer support in adults with bipolar 1 or 2 disorder, not in current episode but relapsed in the previous two years. Individual randomisation is to either group at each site. The groups are carefully matched for the number and type of therapists, length and frequency of the interventions and overall aim of the groups but differ in content and style of delivery. The primary outcome is time to next bipolar episode with measures of the therapeutic process, barriers and drivers to the effective delivery of the interventions and economic analysis. Follow up is for 96 weeks after randomisation. Discussion: The trial has features of both an efficacy and an effectiveness trial design. For generalisability in England it is set in routine public mental health practice with a high degree of expert patient involvement.

U2 - 10.1186/1471-244X-11-114

DO - 10.1186/1471-244X-11-114

M3 - Journal article

VL - 11

JO - BMC Psychiatry

JF - BMC Psychiatry

SN - 1471-244X

M1 - 114

ER -