ArticleEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2008
Priority criteria tool for elective specialist level adolescent psychiatric care predicts treatment received.
Article in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of patient prioritization tools in non-emergency healthcare services.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLittle validation data has so far been published on scoring systems and the literature on prioritization in psychiatry is especially meagre.
objectiveTo explore if the priority criteria score for elective specialist level adolescent psychiatric care in Finland is associated with treatment received and whether the association between the priority criteria scores and treatment given is similar among different subgroups.
methodsAdolescents currently in treatment contact in three adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics (n = 450) were rated according to the criteria of the priority rating tool for specialist level adolescent psychiatric care and information about adolescent's age, sex, diagnosis, and treatments was gathered using a structured form.
resultsWhen sex, age and psychiatric diagnosis were controlled for, the likelihood of receiving specific therapies and medications was significantly associated with the highest priority scores. Except for very frequent individual therapy, there were no differences in the probability of receiving any psychosocial treatment or medication between the sexes. Receiving individual therapy, lengthy treatment contacts and medications were more frequent among older adolescents. The rating tool worked best among adolescents with affective or anxious disorders and worst among those with conduct disorders.
conclusionThe present study indicates that the structured tool used in Finland, originally modified from a Canadian priority rating tool for child and adolescent psychiatry, is able to identify adolescents requiring specified, multiple and lengthy treatments, indicating a need for specialist level services. The scoring system tested is a good candidate for a transparent prioritization tool for European adolescent psychiatric services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18780142What 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.