Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15495006›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses.

C B Joy, C E Adams, K Rice

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Crisis intervention for people with severe mental illnesses.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Helping to prioritise interventions for depression and schizophrenia: use of Population Impact Measures.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2006
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

C B Joy15 Hyde Terrace, Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK, LS2 9LT.
C E Adams
K Rice
St Cadoc's Hospital · GBThe Behaviouralist (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA particularly difficult challenge for community treatment of people with serious mental illnesses is the delivery of an acceptable level of care during the acute phases of severe mental illness. Crisis intervention models of care were developed as a possible solution.

objectivesTo review the effects of a crisis intervention model for anyone with serious mental illness experiencing an acute episode, compared to 'standard care'. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of 1998 were updated with a search of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (July 2003). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of crisis intervention models versus standard care for people with severe mental illnesses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Working independently, reviewers selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT). For continuous data Weighted Mean Differences (WMD) were calculated. MAIN

resultsThis 2003 update includes no new studies. Five studies, none purely investigating crisis intervention, are included and 21 excluded. All included trials used a form of home care for acutely ill people, which included elements of crisis intervention. 45% of the crisis/home care group were unable to avoid hospital admission during their treatment period. Home care, however, may help avoid repeat admissions (n = 465, 3 randomised controlled trials, RR 0.72 CI 0.54 to 0.92, NNT 11 CI 6 to 97), but these data are heterogeneous (I-squared 86%). Crisis/home care reduces the number of people leaving the study early (n = 594, 4 randomised controlled trials, RR lost at 12 months 0.74 CI 0.56 to 0.98, NNT 13 CI 7 to 130), reduces family burden (n = 120, 1 randomised controlled trial, RR 0.34 CI 0.20 to 0.59, NNT 3 CI 2 to 4), and is a more satisfactory form of care for both patients and families. We found no differences in death or mental state outcomes. All studies found home care to be more cost effective than hospital care but all data were either skewed or unusable. No data on staff satisfaction, carer input, compliance with medication and number of relapses were available. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsHome care crisis treatment, coupled with an ongoing home care package, is a viable and acceptable way of treating people with serious mental illnesses. If this approach is to be widely implemented it would seem that more evaluative studies are needed.

Indexed as

Crisis InterventionHumansMental DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15495006
OpenAlexW4247420597

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.