ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2007
Transparent criteria for specialist level adolescent psychiatric care.
Article in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two years of gender identity service for minors: overrepresentation of natal girls with severe problems in adolescent development.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2015Article
- A brief intervention is sufficient for many adolescents seeking help from low threshold adolescent psychiatric services.BMC health services research · 2010Article
- Involuntary commitment and detainment in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2010Article
- Priority criteria tool for elective specialist level adolescent psychiatric care predicts treatment received.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRising health care costs and long waiting lists pose a challenge to public specialist level health services. In Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health required all medical specialities to create a priority-rating tool for elective patients, preferably giving a numerical rating ranging 0-100, with 50 as an entry threshold.
objectiveTo create and test the psychometric properties of a point-count measure for prioritising entry to public specialist level adolescent psychiatric services.
methodAround 710 referred adolescents were given ratings on 17 items focusing on symptom severity, problem behaviours, functioning, progress of adolescent development and prognosis. The structured ratings were compared to an overall assessment of need for treatment on a VAS scale. In order to ensure that the tool was not inappropriately sensitive to confounding by non-disturbance related factors, the associations between the structured priority rating and sex, age, referring agent, study site and diagnosis were analysed.
resultsOf the 17 items, 15 were included in the final priority-rating tool. The requirement than threshold score for entry to services being set at 50 points necessitated scoring factors rather than individual items. Four blocks of items were formed: symptoms and risks; impaired functioning; other relevant issues, and prognosis without specialist level treatment. Most of the referred adolescents scored over the threshold of 50. When diagnosis was controlled for, scoring over 50 was largely independent of age, sex, referring agent or study site.
conclusionThe structured priority ratings corresponded well with clinical global rating of need for care. The tool was not inappropriately sensitive to age, sex, referring agent or study site. In the future, follow-up studies will be needed to evaluate the predictive value of priority ratings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.