Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

VA Health Systems Research

Go to the VA ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Implementation case study: Multifamily group intervention inĀ first-episode psychosis programs.

Browne J, Sanders AS, Friedman-Yakoobian M, Guyer M, Keshavan M, Kim B, Kline E. Implementation case study: Multifamily group intervention inĀ first-episode psychosis programs. Early intervention in psychiatry. 2021 Oct 1; 15(5):1362-1368.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions


AIM: Family interventions are a core component of first-episode psychosis (FEP) treatment; however, low implementation rates are consistently reported. As such, work is needed to understand the factors impacting real-world treatment delivery. The present paper describes the implementation of the McFarlane-model multifamily psychoeducational groups (MFG) in established FEP early intervention programs within a single state. The aims were to examine (a) training participation and implementation of MFG, (b) barriers and facilitators to implementation, and (c) modifications made to MFG. METHODS: Practitioners from six established FEP early intervention programs received in-person training and ongoing consultation in MFG. Training participation data were obtained via attendance and implementation outcomes were obtained from practitioner reports. Fifteen months following the initial training, practitioners reported on clinic-specific barriers, facilitators, and modifications across four categories (context, intervention, practitioner, and recipient). RESULTS: Twenty-three practitioners across six clinics received in-person training and were offered ongoing consultation to support implementation. Difficulties in starting MFG were salient as the earliest group was run 7?months after the initial training, thereby resulting in low overall frequency of groups. A number of barriers spanning context, intervention, practitioner, and recipient domains were noted, the majority of which were clinic-specific. Despite challenges, practitioners identified several facilitators and made modifications to the intervention and its delivery in service of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this implementation case study highlighted the challenges of delivering MFG in real-world FEP early intervention programs. Further, this paper emphasizes the value in identifying and addressing clinic-specific factors when implementing MFG.

Questions about the HSR website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.