Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17631513›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2007

Use of intensive case management to reduce time in hospital in people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-regression.

Tom Burns, Jocelyn Catty, Michael Dash, Chris Roberts, Austin Lockwood, Max Marshall

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

103 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Intensive case management for severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. S3 guideline on psychosocial therapies in severe mental illness: evidence and recommendations.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2015
    Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Guideline
  13. Intensive case management for severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010
    Pooled it
  14. Guideline
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tom BurnsUniversity of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Oxford OX3 7JX. Tom.burns@psych.ox.ac.uk
Jocelyn Catty
Michael Dash
Chris Roberts
Austin Lockwood
Max Marshall

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explain why clinical trials of intensive case management for people with severe mental illness show such inconsistent effects on the use of hospital care.

designSystematic review with meta-regression techniques applied to data from randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane central register of controlled trials, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsychINFO databases from inception to January 2007. Additional anonymised data on patients were obtained for multicentre trials. REVIEW

methodsIncluded trials examined intensive case management compared with standard care or low intensity case management for people with severe mental illness living in the community. We used a fidelity scale to rate adherence to the model of assertive community treatment. Multicentre trials were disaggregated into individual centres with fidelity data specific for each centre. A multivariate meta-regression used mean days per month in hospital as the dependent variable.

resultsWe identified 1335 abstracts with a total of 5961 participants. Of these, 49 were eligible and 29 provided appropriate data. Trials with high hospital use at baseline (before the trial) or in the control group were more likely to find that intensive case management reduced the use of hospital care (coefficient -0.23, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.09, for hospital use at baseline; -0.44, -0.57 to -0.31, for hospital use in control groups). Case management teams organised according to the model of assertive community treatment were more likely to reduce the use of hospital care (coefficient -0.31, -0.59 to -0.03), but this finding was less robust in sensitivity analyses and was not found for staffing levels recommended for assertive community treatment.

conclusionsIntensive case management works best when participants tend to use a lot of hospital care and less well when they do not. When hospital use is high, intensive case management can reduce it, but it is less successful when hospital use is already low. The benefits of intensive case management might be marginal in settings that have already achieved low rates of bed use, and team organisation is more important than the details of staffing. It might not be necessary to apply the full model of assertive community treatment to achieve reductions in inpatient care.

Indexed as

Case ManagementHumansLength of StayMental DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegression Analysis

Identifiers

PMID17631513
PMCPMC1949434

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.