Table 5.

Psychological intervention to improve quality of life and functioning

Reference	Final analysis, n (intervention/control)	Intervention	Follow-up duration after post-intervention (month)	Outcome	Test statistics and P	Measure of effect
Husain et al 2017 (Pakistan)37	16/11	I-PE v. TAU	3	Overall QoL in EQ-5D index	Z = 2.47, P = 0.01	AMD = 0.24 (95% CI 0.1–0.5), SES = 0.88
				Overall QoL in EQ-5D VAS	Z = 3.65, P < 0.001	AMD = 26.8 (95% CI 12.2–41.8), SES = 1.14
Dogan & Sabanciogullari 2003 (Turkey)28	14/12	I-PE v. TAU	3	General health domain	Z = 2.56, P < 0.01a
				Physical aspect	Z = 2.67, P < 0.01a
				Psychological	Z = 1.58, P > 0.05a
				Social aspects	Z = 2.10, P < 0.05a
				Environmental	Z = 1.38, P > 0.05a
Javadpour et al 2013 (Iran)31	45/41	I-PE v. TAU	18	Physical aspect	P < 0.001
				Mental health	P < 0.001
				Social aspects	P < 0.001
				Environmental	P < 0.001
Faridhosseini et al 2017 (Iran)30	12/12	G-PE v. TAU	−	Overall QoL	P = 0.196	Mean 3.12 (s.d. = 2.34)
Cuhadar et al 2014 (Turkey)2,7	24/23	G-PE v. TAU	–	Emotional functioning	Z = −0.21, P = 0.08a
				Mental functioning	Z = −1.93, P = 0.05a
				Sexual functioning	Z = −0.34, P = 0.73a
				Feelings of stigmatisation	Z = −0.95, P = 0.34a
				Introversion	Z = −1.50, P = 0.13a
				Domestic relationships	Z = −2.18, P = 0.03a
				Relations with friends	Z = −1.59, P = 0.11a
				Participating in social activities	Z = −1.80, P = 0.07a
				Daily and recreational activities	Z = −0.15; P = 0.88a
				Taking initiative and using one's potential	Z = −0.00, P = 1.00a
				Work	Z = −0.54, P = 0.59a
Kurdal et al 2014 (Turkey)26	40/40	G-PE v. TAU	3	Emotional functioning	t = 4.04, P < 0.001
				Intellectual functioning	t = 7.46, P < 0.001
				Sexual functioning	t = 1.87, P > 0.050
				Feelings of stigmatisation	t = 7.84, P < 0.001
				Social withdrawal	t = 7.00, P < 0.001
				Household relations	t = 7.84, P < 0.001
				Relations with friends	t = 3.46, P < 0.001
				Participating in social activities	t = 3.66, P < 0.001
				Daily and recreational activities	t = 3.11, P < 0.005
				Taking initiative and self-sufficiency	t = 3.61, P < 0.001
				Occupation	t = 2.01, P < 0.050
Bahredar et al 2014 (Iran)32	15/15/15	G-PE v. placebo and TAU	6	GAF score	F(2,31) = 90.93, P < 0.001
Cardoso 2014 (Brazil)21	19/26	G-PE v. TAU	6	Functional capacity	F = 0.08, P = 0.78
				Pain	F = 1.98, P = 0.17
				General health status	F = 0.04, P = 0.84
				Vitality	F = 0.39, P = 0.54
				Social aspects	F = 0.62, P = 0.44
				Emotional aspects	F = 0.24, P = 0.63
				Mental health	F = 1.19, P = 0.28
de Barros et al 2012 (Brazil)22	28/18	G-PE v. placebo	12	Social domain	P = 0.42	ES = 0.42
				Environmental domain	P = 0.82
				Functioning	P = 0.59	ES = 0.03
				Clinical improvement patient view	P = 0.02	ES = 0.35
				Clinical improvement clinician view	P = 0.57	ES = 0.04
Costa et al 2012 (Brazil)23	25/12	G-CBT v. TAU	6	Functional capacity	P = 0.007	R2 = 0.65
				Pain	P = 0.020	R2 = 0.60
				General health status	P = 0.002	R2 = 0.77
				Vitality	P = 0.036	R2 = 0.46
				Social aspects	P = 0.044	R2 = 0.41
				Emotional aspects	P = 0.001	R2 = 0.56
				Mental health	P = 0.081	R2 = 0.46

I-PE, individual psychoeducation; TAU, treatment as usual; AMD, adjusted mean difference; SES, standardised effect size; VAS, visual analogue scale; G-PE, group psychoeducation; QoL, quality of life; GAF, Global Assessment of Functioning; ES, effect size; G-CBT, group cognitive–behavioural therapy; R², squared value of correlation coefficient or the proportion of explained variation.

a. The comparison was made within arm and the reported result for the treatment group.