Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Aug 2;20(8):e70228. doi: 10.1111/eip.70228

Meeting Family Education and Support Needs in the Early Psychosis Context: Description and Evaluation of a Pragmatic Family Program

Melissa Holland 1,2, Stephen Parker 1,2,3,✉, Naomi Sanders 1,2, Joanne Flear 1,2, Tessa Clarkson 1, Kylie Burke 1,4,5
PMCID: PMC13429372  PMID: 42543197

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Despite a solid evidence base, mental health services often struggle to implement family interventions as part of routine psychosis care. Barriers to implementation include staff lacking training, supervision and confidence, as well as organisations lacking resources and prioritising crisis‐focused interventions. Specific barriers in the early psychosis context include family readiness and interest, access limitations, and lack of perceived alignment with their needs and preferences. This paper describes and evaluates a pragmatic family education and support program in an Australian public mental health Early Psychosis service.

Methods

This uncontrolled pre‐post study used routinely collected data. Data were retrospectively sourced from clinical and administrative records for the 2022–2023 period, during which a low‐intensity (four‐session) multi‐family group program was run on four occasions. A routine voluntary pre‐ and post‐participation survey was completed, which included consideration of the extent to which the program met participants' needs. Data were primarily considered using repeated measures t‐tests and Cohen's d as a measure of effect size.

Results

Less than half of the families invited to the program participated (38.8%). Despite the program's low intensity, it was reported to meet the needs of most participating families and caregivers. Participants reported significantly increased knowledge of psychosis and reported higher levels of coping with symptoms at post compared with pre‐intervention measures. An increased number of sessions attended predicted improvements in knowledge (limited to ‘relapse’) but not coping.

Conclusion

A low‐intensity family education program in the early psychosis project may meet the needs of most families and caregivers who are willing to engage. However, improvements in coping were modest and variable across participants, and the clinical significance of this change should be interpreted cautiously. Such a program may be inadequate to consistently meet the needs of all families engaged with an early psychosis service. Public mental health services need to continue to find better ways to engage and support the families of people experiencing early psychosis.

Keywords: caregivers, early psychosis, family intervention, implementation, schizophrenia

1. Introduction

Family interventions are an established evidence‐based practice for preventing relapse in people diagnosed with schizophrenia (Rodolico et al. 2022). The routine availability of family interventions is recommended across a broad range of psychosis‐relevant clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) (Addington et al. 2017; Crockford and Addington 2017; Galletly et al. 2016; Norman et al. 2017; Orygen 2016; Perera and Taylor 2014). Specific emphasis is also made in the literature on the value of these interventions in supporting the best outcomes for young people experiencing the first episode of psychosis (Claxton et al. 2017; Ipekci et al. 2025; Orygen 2016). Family interventions for psychosis typically focus on enhancing a family's (1) ability to support the person experiencing psychosis, (2) understanding of psychosis and its treatment, (3) communication style, and (4) problem‐solving (Ventriglio et al. 2020). A recent systematic review found that family psychoeducation alone is superior to more complex interventions. Family interventions can be delivered at the level of the individual family member, the family (with or without the family member affected by psychosis), or as group interventions with participation from multiple families.

Despite a solid evidence base, mental health services often struggle to implement family interventions as part of routine psychosis care (Hestmark et al. 2020; Jolley and Grice 2024; Langeveld et al. 2025; Norheim et al. 2025); with implementation rates of family interventions for psychosis in Australian mental health services ranging from 0% to 53% (Bucci et al. 2016). Barriers to implementation include staff lacking training, supervision and confidence, as well as organisations lacking resources and prioritising crisis‐focused interventions (Bucci et al. 2016). Specific barriers to family uptake of available support in the early psychosis context include readiness and interest, access limitations, and lack of alignment with needs and preferences (Selick et al. 2017).

This paper discusses and evaluates a low‐intensity family education program developed within an Australian public mental health Early Psychosis service. The program was initiated in response to the urgent need to better support families and caregivers involved with the service. It is significant to note that even though there have been dedicated early psychosis services in Queensland for over 15 years, this site was the only one offering a formal family intervention on a regular basis. At this site, challenges related to acute cases and crisis response, along with caseloads that often exceeded the recommended maximum of 15 consumers per full‐time equivalent (FTE) case manager, were frequently cited as factors that hindered the delivery of psychosocial interventions, including support for families.

The family program intervention was low intensity by design, with the intention that it could be implemented by busy clinicians with minimal impact on their existing duties. The emphasis of this family program aligns with the Health Belief Model (Alamer 2024), aiming to enhance the family's self‐efficacy and encourage preventive actions to support the person experiencing psychosis. The educational content covers risk factors of psychotic disorders, treatment options and benefits, barriers to engagement, and identification of cues to action regarding escalation and communication with the mental health service. This program description and evaluation assess whether a low‐intensity family intervention can meet participants' needs. The emergent knowledge will guide the adaptation of the local program and inform other services seeking to establish and sustain family interventions in the early psychosis context.

2. Method

This uncontrolled pre‐post evaluation was based on routinely collected data. Exemption from ethics approval requirement was confirmed by the relevant ethics committee (EX/2023/MNHB/94371). Completion of participant surveys was voluntary and not required for program attendance; the survey instrument stated that completion implied consent to use the data for research and evaluation purposes. The project reporting considered the transparent reporting of evaluations with non‐randomised designs (TREND) Statement checklist (Des Jarlais et al. (2004); see Supporting Information S1).

2.1. Evaluation Context

The Metro North Early Psychosis service operates within a large metropolitan public hospital district serving a community of over one million people. An intensive community case management model is operated, with a target consumer‐case‐manager ratio of 10‐to‐15:1. The target population is people experiencing the first episode of psychosis aged 18–25 and their families. Care is provided over a maximum period of 24 months. The multidisciplinary team includes medical, nursing, occupational therapy, psychology, and social work positions. Group‐based psychosocial interventions have been prioritised due to staffing limitations and the need for social interaction through group‐based delivery. Specific consumer‐focused groups offered by the service include Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Psychosis, Cognitive Remediation, Social Cognition and Interaction Training, and a social group. Vocational rehabilitation support is based on external partnerships with a non‐government organisation.

2.2. Family Education Program Description

The family program is delivered in a multi‐family group format and focuses on psychoeducation. The program was developed in‐house, and the current iteration runs in a two‐hour interactive workshop format over four consecutive weeks (see Table 1 for further details). The content and facilitation of the fourth session are led by consumer and carer representatives of the lived experience workforce. The senior social worker coordinates the program, and each session is co‐facilitated by other team members (nursing, medical, occupational therapy, psychology) and/or lived experience workers/representatives (both consumer and carer). While the content was informed by the staff's experience working with and supporting families in the early psychosis context, there was no direct consultation or collaboration with the intended participants in the program's initial development. Families and carers are invited to participate in the program by the young person's principal service provider (case manager).

TABLE 1.

Early Psychosis service family education and support program: Who participates, content, process, and resourcing.

Who participates? What content is covered? What is the group process? What resources are needed?

Families are invited by individual Principal service providers (PSP). All known families of young people engaged with the service are invited to attend. If a young person does not consent for information to be shared with family, an invitation can still be extended at the discretion of the PSP

Consumers do not attend the group, but their PSP informs them that their family has been invited to participate. The program establishes and maintains clear confidentiality boundaries for families and facilitators regarding the discussion of identifying information about consumers during sessions

Families are welcome to attend the group program on more than one occasion

In the current format, the program does not address the cultural diversity of the Early Psychosis population. The team refers to multicultural and/or transcultural mental health workers/services for specific interventions related to the family's needs

The program coordinator and PSPs actively remind participants of upcoming sessions and explore barriers to attendance
Session 1: What is psychosis?
  • Overview of the Early Psychosis Service and purpose of the program
  • Positive and negative symptoms of psychosis
  • Links between substance use, trauma and psychosis
  • Stress vulnerability of model of psychosis
  • Accessing crisis supports
Session 2: Understanding recovery
  • What is recovery?
  • Psychosocial treatments
  • Communication strategies
  • Early warning signs
  • Relapse prevention
  • Supporting someone experiencing and recovering from psychosis
Session 3: Treatment and medication
  • Role of medications in the management of psychosis, bipolar disorder, and depression
  • Types of antipsychotic medications, including mode of delivery
  • Medication side‐effects
  • The Mental Health Act, involuntary assessment and treatment
Session 4: Carer and lived experience
  • The role of the carer and support within the community
  • A lived experience of recovery

Evening sessions are held weekly at the local Community Health Centre for 4 weeks, at least twice a year. Sessions lasted 2 h and included a 10–15‐min break

Sessions are delivered by multidisciplinary team members (MDT) and lived experience (consumer and carer) workers. Full MDT involvement throughout the program facilitates family understanding of professional roles and staff skill development in family and group work
  • Sessions 1–2 (≥ 2 MDT members)
  • Session 3 (≥ 1 medical, ≥ 1 MDT member)
  • Session 4 (2× lived experience workers, ≥ 1 MDT member)

Didactic content delivery with opportunities regularly provided to ask questions. Discussion often arises among parents about shared experiences that offer opportunities for informal support

The group format allows families to meet multiple members of the MDT and other families who share similar experiences

During breaks or post‐session, facilitators will check in and spend time debriefing with any family members who are in distress. The following workday, clinical handover is provided to the PSP for follow‐up
Equipment
  • Computer
  • Projector
  • Internet
Consumables
  • Refreshments supplied by clinicians
  • Resource booklet for participants
Staffing
  • Facilitator attendance is supported via ‘time off in lieu’ (TOIL)
  • Availability of consumer and carer lived experience representatives (employed by the hospital service) to facilitate Session 4
Open in a new tab

2.3. Data Sources

Data were retrospectively sourced from clinical and administrative records for the 2022–2023 period, during which the family program was run on four occasions.

2.3.1. Acceptance of the Offer to Attend the Program (2022 Year Only)

Attendance data for 2022 included whether the family and/or carers of an early psychosis consumer had accepted an offer to participate in the family program (yes/no).

2.3.2. Session Attendance for Families Accepting the Offer of Program Attendance

Attendance data for participation by at least one family member/carer in individual sessions during the 2022–2023 period was used to assess attendance rates.

2.3.3. Pre−/Post‐Survey Offered at Family Program Commencement and on Completion

A routine, voluntary pre‐ and post‐participation survey was offered to all participants in the family groups. The survey instrument (see Supporting Information S2) was developed in‐house and focused on self‐rated assessments of knowledge and coping regarding early psychosis, using 5‐point Likert scales (for knowledge questions the anchors corresponded from 1 (none) to 5 (very good); for the question ‘How well do you feel you are coping with the psychosis?’ the anchors were rated from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (well)).

The post‐survey included the question ‘Do you feel that your needs were met by the program…’ (Yes/No); this was considered the primary outcome for the evaluation. The survey also sought self‐reported data about which sessions the participant had attended.

The surveys were anonymous but used a unique participant identifier to link pre‐ and post‐data. Where multiple members of a family or carers associated with a consumer had attended, each individual was invited to complete the surveys. Surveys were emailed or completed immediately before the first session and immediately after the final session.

2.4. Analysis

Quantitative analyses were conducted in R (R Core Team 2025). Descriptive statistics were calculated for program acceptance and attendance data. A flow diagram was developed to depict family attendance patterns across sessions, and differences in the likelihood of family participation across the four sessions were assessed using the chi‐square statistic. For the 27 attendees with pre‐ and post‐survey data available, there was < 1% missing data. Little's MCAR test was not statistically significant (χ 2 = 12.00, df = 18, p = 0.848), indicating that the missing data was missing completely at random. Although missingness below 5% is considered inconsequential (Schafer 1999), imputation retains all available cases rather than discarding them (van der Heijden et al. 2006), which was our preferred option given the small sample size. Missing values were imputed using the ‘mice’ package in R (van Buuren and Groothuis‐Oudshoorn 2011). A single imputed dataset was used, which produced results equivalent to a complete‐case analysis. For participants with paired pre‐ and post‐survey data, responses to each knowledge and coping item were analysed to assess change using repeated‐measures t‐tests with the Bonferroni‐Holm correction for multiple comparisons. Effect size was assessed using Cohen's d and interpreted as per the rules defined by Sawilowsky (2009).

Within the post‐group survey data, exploratory correlation analyses were conducted to examine the association between self‐reported session attendance and post‐survey knowledge and coping. These analyses included all participants who had completed the post‐survey.

3. Results

3.1. Acceptance of the Offer to Participate in the Family Program

Data on the acceptance of the offer to join the family program at the individual consumer level in the early psychosis service were available only for 2022. In that year, 38% of consumers whose family or carer(s) were invited to participate accepted the offer to engage in the family program.

3.2. Session Attendance and Participant Characteristics

Over the 2022–2023 period, there were 64 unique attendees of the family program who were associated with 49 individual consumers (range 1–4, x¯ = 1.3 (0.65) family members/carer(s) attending per consumer, see Figure 1). Most of the family program attendees were female (68.5%), parents (85.2%), aged over 46 years (81.1%), and reported that the young person experiencing psychosis was currently residing with them (75.5%, see Supporting Information S3 Table S1). Most attendees indicated that their family had been engaged with the Early Psychosis service for less than 6 months (65.4%). Less than half of the families had a member in attendance at all four sessions (n = 21/49, 42.3%, x¯ = 2.9 (1.13), x~ = 3). There were no significant differences in the likelihood of a family having attended any one of the four sessions included in the program (X 2 (3) = 4.4, p = 0.221). No adverse events were recorded as having arisen from participation in the program.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Early Psychosis service's ‘Family education and support group’ participation over the 2022–2023 period. Data are at the level of the consumer (e.g., an Early Psychosis service consumer); different people associated with that consumer may have attended a given session. Dotted lines indicate that the next session was missed, but that attendance occurred at a later session.

3.3. Participant Survey Data: Needs Met, Knowledge and Coping

Most attendees who completed the post‐survey indicated that their needs had been met through group participation (n = 35/41, 85.4%). Paired pre‐ and post‐data were available for 27 attendees (42 participants completed the post‐survey but not the pre‐survey). The only significant difference between survey completers with paired data available and those without was that those with paired data were more likely to have the young person experiencing psychosis residing with them (X 2 (1) = 5.352, p = 0.021, Cramer's V = 0.318; see Supporting Information S3 Tables S1 and S2). Repeated measures t‐tests indicated that mean post‐test scores were significantly higher (i.e., improved) than the mean pre‐test scores for self‐reported understanding and knowledge of psychosis across all items with large effect sizes (ts ranged from −6.11 to −7.78, all ps < 0.001; see Table 2 and Figure 2): knowledge of symptoms (pre M = 2.96, SD = 1.09; post M = 4.26, SD = 0.76; d = 1.18), knowledge of causes (pre M = 2.63, SD = 1.01; post M = 3.96, SD = 0.76; d = 1.39), knowledge of treatment (pre M = 2.81, SD = 1.00; post M = 4.07, SD = 0.68; d = 1.19), and knowledge of relapse (pre M = 2.63, SD = 1.08; post M = 4.15, SD = 0.82; d = 1.50). Similarly, a repeated‐measures t‐test indicated that post‐test scores were significantly higher (i.e., improved) than pre‐test scores for self‐reported coping with the experience of psychosis (t(26) = −3.05, p < 0.01, d = 0.59). Visual inspection of the box plots (Figure 2) for self‐reported coping indicates greater variability in change between pre‐ and post‐test scores, with decreases being observed only for this variable.

TABLE 2.

Repeated measures t‐tests of pre‐ and post‐intervention scores for knowledge and coping outcomes, limited to family group participants who completed both the pre‐ and post‐surveys.

Variable Mean (SD) Mean difference N df a t b p c d d
Pre Post D¯ (SD)
Knowledge of Symptoms 2.96 (1.091) 4.26 (0.764) −1.30 (1.10) 27 26 −6.107 < 0.001 1.175
Knowledge of Causes 2.63 (1.006) 3.96 (0.759) −1.33 (0.96) 27 26 −7.211 < 0.001 1.388
Knowledge of Treatment 2.81 (1.001) 4.07 (0.675) −1.26 (1.06) 27 26 −6.176 < 0.001 1.189
Knowledge of Relapse 2.63 (1.079) 4.15 (0.818) −1.56 (1.01) 27 26 −7.780 < 0.001 1.497
Coping 3.04 (1.018) 3.63 (0.688) −0.538 (0.99) 27 26 −3.049 < 0.010 0.587
Open in a new tab

Note: Mean differences, t‐values, and Bonferroni‐Holm corrected p‐values are reported, with Cohen's d indicating effect sizes (≥ 0.8 = large). All variables showed significant improvements (p < 0.05).

a

Paired data was available for 27 participants; an additional 42 participants had either only pre‐ or post‐group data available.

b

Repeated measures t‐test (p < 0.05 criterion).

c

Bonferroni‐Holm corrected p‐values to maintain a family‐wise error rate (α = 0.05) when conducting multiple comparisons.

d

Cohen's d effect sizes where ≥ 0.8 indicates a large effect size.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Boxplots of pre and post outcomes (n = 27) reflecting the distribution of scores across knowledge questions (1 = none, 5 = very good) and coping (1 = not at all, 5 = well). Boxes reflect the middle 50% of the data, with the thick dark horizontal line reflecting the median. Lines crossing from pre‐ to post scores reflect individual participant change (darker lines signifying a higher number of participants).

The exploratory analyses examined correlations between self‐reported session attendance and self‐rated knowledge and coping in the post‐survey (see Table 3). These analyses suggested that an increased number of sessions attended was significantly associated with self‐rated knowledge about relapse (r(40) = 0.43, p = 0.004), but not coping (r(40) = 0.26, p = 0.093) or the other knowledge domains (all ps > 0.05). Coping had a significant correlation in the expected positive direction with knowledge about relapse (r(40) = 0.50, p = 0.001) and symptoms (r(40) = 0.43, p = 0.005), such that as perceived knowledge of these factors increased, so did coping. No significant correlations were found between coping and knowledge of treatment (r(40) = 0.10, p = 0.531) or causes (r(40) = 0.29, p = 0.061).

TABLE 3.

Pearson correlations between post‐survey outcomes of the full sample completing this survey component.

Coping Knowledge Number of sessions attended
Relapse Treatments Causes Symptoms
Coping Pearson Correlation 1 0.500 0.099 0.291 0.426 0.263
Sig. (2‐tailed) 0.001* 0.531 0.061 0.005* 0.093
N 42 42 42 42 42 42
Knowledge Relapse Pearson Correlation 0.500 1 0.476 0.620 0.636 0.426
Sig. (2‐tailed) 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.004
N 42 42 42 42 42 42
Treatments Pearson Correlation 0.099 0.476 1 0.518 0.598 0.199
Sig. (2‐tailed) 0.531 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.206
N 42 42 42 42 42 42
Causes Pearson Correlation 0.291 0.620 0.518 1 0.697 0.296
Sig. (2‐tailed) 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057
N 42 42 42 42 42 42
Symptoms Pearson Correlation 0.426 0.636 0.598 0.697 1 0.169
Sig. (2‐tailed) 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.283
N 42 42 42 42 42 42
Number of sessions attended Pearson Correlation 0.263 0.426 0.199 0.296 0.169 1
Sig. (2‐tailed) 0.093 0.004* 0.206 0.057 0.283
N 42 42 42 42 42 42
Open in a new tab

Note: The total number of sessions significantly correlated with knowledge of relapse but not other knowledge domains or coping. Coping was significantly correlated with knowledge about relapse and symptoms.

*

p < 0.05.

4. Discussion

The evaluation assessed the extent to which a family group program at an Australian public mental health early psychosis service met participants' needs and was acceptable to them. Findings suggest that the program was well received by the families and carers who accessed it. Despite frequent incomplete attendance across the program, most participants indicated that their needs were met. Families reported feeling more knowledgeable about psychosis and reported an improved sense of coping with their family member's psychosis. These results are promising, suggesting that being able to provide a family group program regularly within an early psychosis service may be able to support families who are willing and able to engage to enhance their sense of coping and knowledge relevant to early psychosis.

However, as evidenced by almost two‐thirds of families who were offered the opportunity to participate choosing not to, the program in its current format may not be suitable for meeting the needs of many families and carers supporting young people engaged with the early psychosis service. This is concerning, given the evidence supporting the association between family involvement and longer‐term consumer involvement with coordinated speciality care programs for early psychosis (Demarais et al. 2024). Most consumers want their families and carers involved in their early psychosis care to some degree. Furthermore, the early psychosis period can be associated with complex family responses, including withdrawal, fear of stigma, parental guilt and denial, which can complicate help‐seeking and treatment engagement (Cairns et al. 2015; Connor et al. 2016). Additionally, negative experiences with the healthcare system in the context of help‐seeking for early psychosis may limit subsequent family and carer engagement (Cairns et al. 2015).

The current evaluation does not provide insight into the reasons families choose not to participate in the program or into the inconsistency in attendance between sessions. Further research has commenced to explore the support needs and preferences of the diverse consumers, families, and carers who engage with the service in the context of early psychosis. It is hoped that this exploration will identify pathways to enhancing engagement and outcomes for families and carers, particularly given that less than half accepted the offer to participate in the existing program. On a practical level, there are often barriers to family involvement in early psychosis care, such as service location and time of availability (Polillo et al. 2022). Telehealth is a delivery modality that may offer opportunities to increase the convenience, flexibility, and accessibility of early psychosis care, including family interventions (Florence et al. 2024; Mueser et al. 2022). Further efforts to understand families' needs, preferences, and barriers to engagement in the local context are needed.

The evaluation demonstrated that families who chose to participate in the family program showed increased self‐rated knowledge and coping at program completion. While the findings are promising, the absence of a significant correlation between the number of sessions attended and self‐rated coping across most knowledge domains suggests caution in attributing the observed gains to the program and its components.

A particularly positive finding is that family members indicated some improvement in their coping following participation in the group program. This is noteworthy given that the program does not specifically target factors associated with the significant stress and burden associated with caring for a young person experiencing a serious mental illness. Parents and carers of young people affected by mental illness can experience considerable disruption to their routines, financial burden, stigma, and challenges in navigating the mental health system (Reed et al. 2023; Wingrove and Rickwood 2019). A recent meta‐analysis found that almost a third of carers of people with a mental illness experience caregiver burden, with this being highest for carers and families of people living with psychosis (Cham et al. 2022). In the Australian context, a cross‐sectional survey of parents and carers of young people (18–25 years) experiencing mental ill‐health by Wingrove and Rickwood (2019) suggested strategies to enhance self‐efficacy and limit the activity restrictions may provide a pathway to reducing carer stress and burden. Future development and implementation of early psychosis‐focused family interventions should embed components targeting these factors (Langeveld et al. 2025).

The family program considered in this evaluation was low intensity, developed pragmatically by passionate clinicians to address an unmet need in the absence of dedicated time and resources for a family intervention. The successful broad implementation of family interventions as part of routine early psychosis care will require prioritisation of resources to support this. This is likely to include resource allocation, protected time for family‐focused work, and managerial support and coordination (Langeveld et al. 2025).

This evaluation presents promising findings from a single site with a relatively small sample. No data were available on the demographic characteristics of people who chose not to participate in the group program. Considering issues such as language preferences and ethnicity would be relevant to exploring the degree to which the program was accessible to the culturally diverse populations served by the early psychosis service. Additionally, the survey instrument used for the evaluation was not pre‐validated, and several limitations threaten generalisability. While the evaluation supports the family intervention having met the needs of participants, these participants were self‐selected, female and predominantly parents. Confidence in the exploratory correlational analysis findings is undermined by the relatively small sample size, increasing the risk of Type II errors. Additionally, the dataset did not allow for covariate analyses to identify other factors that may account for the changes observed in the pre–post‐group comparisons. Furthermore, this naturalistic sample may not be broadly representative of families and carers engaged with the early psychosis service. The sample is likely biassed towards families and carers who viewed the program's focus format as relevant to their needs.

The evidence base supports the importance of family interventions in the context of early psychosis. The program described in this evaluation emerged pragmatically to address the unmet needs of families and carers in the absence of dedicated resources to support more formal interventions. Despite the program's low intensity, it was reported to meet the needs of most participating families and caregivers. Increased efforts to develop and implement family‐focused interventions in the early psychosis context are needed.

Funding

SP's involvement in research as a clinical‐academic is supported by a Metro North Clinician Research Fellowship (2024‐2027). The other authors have nothing to report.

Supporting information

Table S1: Family education and support group participant data, including comparison between participants where both pre‐ and post‐survey data was available and not available.

Table S2: Respondent knowledge and coping after participation in the Early Psychosis service's Family education and support program.

EIP-20-0-s001.pdf (823.4KB, pdf)

Acknowledgements

The contribution of the Early Psychosis service of Metro North Mental Health to the delivery and development of the program is acknowledged, including that of staff, consumers, families, and carers. Open access publishing facilitated by The University of Queensland, as part of the Wiley ‐ The University of Queensland agreement via the Council of Australasian University Librarians.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

References

  1. Addington, D. , Anderson E., Kelly M., Lesage A., and Summerville C.. 2017. “Canadian Practice Guidelines for Comprehensive Community Treatment for Schizophrenia and Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 62, no. 9: 662–672. 10.1177/0706743717719900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alamer, A. S. 2024. “Behavior Change Theories and Models Within Health Belief Model Research: A Five‐Decade Holistic Bibliometric Analysis.” Cureus 16, no. 6: e63143. 10.7759/cureus.63143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bucci, S. , Berry K., Barrowclough C., and Haddock G.. 2016. “Family Interventions in Psychosis: A Review of the Evidence and Barriers to Implementation.” Australian Psychologist 51, no. 1: 62–68. 10.1111/ap.12172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cairns, V. A. , Reid G. S., and Murray C.. 2015. “Family Members' Experience of Seeking Help for First‐Episode Psychosis on Behalf of a Loved One: A Meta‐Synthesis of Qualitative Research.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 9, no. 3: 185–199. 10.1111/eip.12157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cham, C. Q. , Ibrahim N., Siau C. S., et al. 2022. “Caregiver Burden Among Caregivers of Patients With Mental Illness: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Health 10, no. 12: 2423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Claxton, M. , Onwumere J., and Fornells‐Ambrojo M.. 2017. “Do Family Interventions Improve Outcomes in Early Psychosis? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: 371. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Connor, C. , Greenfield S., Lester H., et al. 2016. “Seeking Help for First‐Episode Psychosis: A Family Narrative.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 10, no. 4: 334–345. 10.1111/eip.12177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Crockford, D. , and Addington D.. 2017. “Canadian Schizophrenia Guidelines: Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders With Coexisting Substance Use Disorders.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 62, no. 9: 624–634. 10.1177/0706743717720196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Demarais, M. , Fisher M., Williams‐Wengerd A., Alexandre C., Meyer‐Kalos P., and Vinogradov S.. 2024. “Impact of Family Engagement on Client Participation in Coordinated Specialty Care for First Episodes of Psychosis.” BMC Psychiatry 24, no. 1: 686. 10.1186/s12888-024-06126-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Des Jarlais, D. C. , Lyles C., Crepaz N., and Group, T . 2004. “Improving the Reporting Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioral and Public Health Interventions: The TREND Statement.” American Journal of Public Health 94, no. 3: 361–366. 10.2105/ajph.94.3.361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Florence, A. C. , Stefančić A., Sheitman A., et al. 2024. “Client and Family Experiences With Telehealth‐Delivered Early Psychosis Services.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 18, no. 12: 1032–1039. 10.1111/eip.13550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Galletly, C. , Castle D., Dark F., et al. 2016. “Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Schizophrenia and Related Disorders.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 50, no. 5: 410–472. 10.1177/0004867416641195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hestmark, L. , Romøren M., Heiervang K. S., et al. 2020. “Implementation of Guidelines on Family Involvement for Persons With Psychotic Disorders in Community Mental Health Centres (IFIP): Protocol for a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMC Health Services Research 20, no. 1: 934. 10.1186/s12913-020-05792-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ipekci, B. , Thibeau H., Gibbs J., Barnard E., and Kline E. R.. 2025. “Young Adult Perspectives on Treatment Engagement and Family Communication During Psychosis.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 19, no. 2: e70006. 10.1111/eip.70006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Jolley, S. , and Grice S.. 2024. “State of the Art in Psychological Therapies for Psychosis: Family Interventions for Psychosis.” Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 97, no. 1: 19–33. 10.1111/papt.12487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Langeveld, J. H. , Hatløy K., ten Velden Hegelstad W., Johannessen J. O., and Joa I.. 2025. “The TIPS Family Psychoeducational Group Work Approach in First Episode Psychosis and Related Disorders: 25 Years of Experiences.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 19, no. 1: e13591. 10.1111/eip.13591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mueser, K. T. , Achtyes E. D., Gogate J., Mancevski B., Kim E., and Starr H. L.. 2022. “Telehealth‐Based Psychoeducation for Caregivers: The Family Intervention in Recent‐Onset Schizophrenia Treatment Study.” JMIR Mental Health 9, no. 4: e32492. 10.2196/32492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Norheim, I. , Pedersen R., Selle M. L., et al. 2025. “Effectiveness of Implementing Family Involvement on Patient Outcomes in Individuals With Psychotic Disorders: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMC Psychiatry 25, no. 1: 1142. 10.1186/s12888-025-07501-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Norman, R. , Lecomte T., Addington D., and Anderson E.. 2017. “Canadian Treatment Guidelines on Psychosocial Treatment of Schizophrenia in Adults.” Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 62, no. 9: 617–623. 10.1177/0706743717719894. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Orygen . 2016. Australian Clinical Guidelines for Early Psychosis. Orygen The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Perera, U. , and Taylor M.. 2014. NICE CG178 on Psychosis‐An Evidence‐Based Guideline. Vol. 25, 6–8. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  22. Polillo, A. , Voineskos A. N., Foussias G., et al. 2022. “Disengagement From Early Psychosis Intervention Services: An Observational Study Informed by a Survey of Patient and Family Perspectives.” Schizophrenia 8, no. 1: 94. 10.1038/s41537-022-00300-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. R Core Team . 2025. “R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.”
  24. Reed, M. , Bedard C., Perlman C. M., Browne D. T., and Ferro M. A.. 2023. “Family Functioning and Health‐Related Quality of Life in Parents of Children With Mental Illness.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 32, no. 11: 3366–3377. 10.1007/s10826-023-02556-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rodolico, A. , Bighelli I., Avanzato C., et al. 2022. “Family Interventions for Relapse Prevention in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis.” Lancet Psychiatry 9, no. 3: 211–221. 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00437-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sawilowsky, S. S. 2009. “New Effect Size Rules of Thumb.” Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 8, no. 2: 26–599. [Google Scholar]
  27. Schafer, J. L. 1999. “Multiple Imputation: A Primer.” Statistical Methods in Medical Research 8, no. 1: 3–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Selick, A. , Durbin J., Vu N., O'Connor K., Volpe T., and Lin E.. 2017. “Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Family Support and Education in Early Psychosis Intervention Programmes: A Systematic Review.” Early Intervention in Psychiatry 11, no. 5: 365–374. 10.1111/eip.12400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. van Buuren, S. , and Groothuis‐Oudshoorn K.. 2011. “Mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R.” Journal of Statistical Software 45, no. 3: 1–67. 10.18637/jss.v045.i03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. van der Heijden, G. J. M. G. , Donders A. R. T., Stijnen T., and Moons K. G. M.. 2006. “Imputation of Missing Values Is Superior to Complete Case Analysis and the Missing‐Indicator Method in Multivariable Diagnostic Research: A Clinical Example.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59, no. 10: 1102–1109. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Ventriglio, A. , Ricci F., Magnifico G., et al. 2020. “Psychosocial Interventions in Schizophrenia: Focus on Guidelines.” International Journal of Social Psychiatry 66, no. 8: 735–747. 10.1177/0020764020934827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wingrove, C. , and Rickwood D.. 2019. “Parents and Carers of Young People With Mental Ill‐Health: What Factors Mediate the Effect of Burden on Stress?” Counselling Psychology Quarterly 32, no. 1: 121–134. 10.1080/09515070.2017.1384362. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1: Family education and support group participant data, including comparison between participants where both pre‐ and post‐survey data was available and not available.

Table S2: Respondent knowledge and coping after participation in the Early Psychosis service's Family education and support program.

EIP-20-0-s001.pdf (823.4KB, pdf)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Articles from Early Intervention in Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES