Search

This paper describes a project in which family interventions in psychosis services were successfully established in a routine clinical setting. This has involved the development of a whole-team training approach, an accredited one-year training course, and a clinical approach which integrates the systemic and cognitive-behavioural psychoeducational approaches. Since the original description of this project ( Burbach and Stanbridge, 1998 ) the training course and service have been evaluated and the clinical approach has been further developed. These developments, particularly the ‘cognitive interactional’ approach and collaborative therapeutic stance, are detailed. The paper explores the factors which have contributed to the successful establishment and maintenance of the service, and describes more recent initiatives to bring about more family/carer-friendly mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family interventions for psychosis are not routinely available, in spite of a robust evidence base, clear policies and guidelines, and requests from service recipients. The reasons for this are complex involving three key groups: service recipients, clinicians and organizations. This paper first of all identifies barriers to implementation in relation to each of these groups. It then outlines a range of strategies that may be employed at a number of levels to bring about change in each of these systems. The strategies are drawn from current research in the area, and from experiences over a seven-year period in the Meriden West Midlands Family Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family intervention for schizophrenia has informed the whole history of family therapy, although in different fashions. This presentation will deal with the main phases of such intervention, outlining the characteristic features of each one. We can roughly divide the history of family intervention for schizophrenia into four phases: Phase 1 – Conjoint family therapy (1955–1965). Family interventions were aimed at modifying family communication patterns, implying the possibility of a definitive resolution of psychopathology. Phase 2 – Antipsychiatry (1965–1975). This, rather than a treatment model, was a philosophy of psychiatry, which considered schizophrenia as an epiphenomenon of the distortions of Western society. Family treatment was aimed at promoting the awareness of such a dynamic. Phase 3 – Milan systemic therapy (1975–1985). The systemic model was aimed at helping people with schizophrenia to recognize their position within their families (and other significant systems), giving all family members a new sense of their relationships to each other. Phase 4 – Psychoeducation (1985–2005). In most psychoeducational models, schizophrenia was conceived of as a biologically determined disorder. Psychoeducation was a way of helping the not diagnosed family members to cope with problems brought about by the illness, eliciting consensus towards psychiatric treatments such as medication and rehabilitation. A fifth phase of family intervention for schizophrenia is probably developing right now. If this is happening it should probably be an integrative phase, in which different approaches to family dynamics might be bridged and blended, in order to give more effective help to all members of families with schizophrenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]