↓ Skip to main content

Culturally-adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) for African-Caribbeans diagnosed with schizophrenia and their families: a feasibility study protocol of implementation and acceptability

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Culturally-adapted Family Intervention (CaFI) for African-Caribbeans diagnosed with schizophrenia and their families: a feasibility study protocol of implementation and acceptability
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40814-016-0070-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn Edge, Amy Degnan, Sarah Cotterill, Katherine Berry, Richard Drake, John Baker, Christine Barrowclough, Adwoa Hughes-Morley, Paul Grey, Dinesh Bhugra, Patrick Cahoon, Nicholas Tarrier, Shôn Lewis, Kathryn Abel

Abstract

African-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. This 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. This 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 47 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 51 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,997,157
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#240
of 1,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,117
of 374,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#8
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.