We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Evidence-based psychosocial treatments for schizophrenia founded on Western belief systems and values may not be efficacious in different cultures without adaptation. This systematic review analyses the nature and outcomes of culturally-adapted psychosocial interventions in schizophrenia, examining how interventions have been adapted, their efficacy and what features drive heterogeneity in outcome.
Method
Articles identified by searching electronic databases from inception to 3 March 2016, reference lists and previous reviews were independently screened by two authors for eligible controlled trials. Data on the nature of adaptations was analysed inductively using thematic analyses. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models to calculate effect sizes (Hedges’ g) for symptoms.
Results
Forty-six studies with 7828 participants were included, seven adapted for minority populations. Cultural adaptations were grouped into nine themes: language, concepts and illness models, family, communication, content, cultural norms and practices, context and delivery, therapeutic alliance, and treatment goals. Meta-analyses showed significant post-treatment effects in favour of adapted interventions for total symptom severity (n = 2345, g: −0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.36 to −0.09), positive (n = 1152, g: −0.56, 95% CI −0.86 to −0.26), negative (n = 855, g: −0.39, 95% CI −0.63 to −0.15), and general (n = 525, g: −0.75, CI −1.21 to −0.29) symptoms.
Conclusions
The adaptation process can be described within a framework that serves as a benchmark for development or assessment of future adaptations. Culturally adapted interventions were more efficacious than usual treatment in proportion to the degree of adaptation. There is insufficient evidence to show that adapted interventions are better than non-adapted interventions. Features of context, intervention and design influenced efficacy. Investigating whether adaptation improves efficacy, most importantly amongst ethnic minorities, requires better designed trials with comparisons against unadapted interventions.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.