Trial reportBMC psychiatry2014
Ten year outcomes of participants in the REACT (Randomised Evaluation of Assertive Community Treatment in North London) study.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intensive case management for severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Long-term outcomes of assertive community treatment in Japan: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.BMC psychiatry · 2025Trial
- Comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive community supported discharge service versus treatment as usual for adolescents with psychiatric emergencies: a randomised controlled trial.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2018Trial
- Assertive Community Treatment and ACT-Derived Outreach Models: A Scoping Review of Adaptations, Fidelity and Outcomes.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Longitudinal record linked analysis of an assertive community treatment programme in a suburban mental health hospital: emergency department presentations, hospital admissions and bed days.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Assertive Community Programs for Patients with Severe Mental Disorders: Are Benefits Sustained After Discharge?Community mental health journal · 2020Article
- Can "Model Projects of Need-Adapted Care" Reduce Involuntary Hospital Treatment and the Use of Coercive Measures?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA previous randomised controlled trial that investigated Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) in the UK (the REACT Study) found no clinical advantage over usual care delivered by Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs) at 18 and 36 month follow-ups. No studies have investigated long term clinical and social outcomes for patients receiving ACT.
methodWe investigated inpatient service use, social outcomes, service contact and adverse events for the 251 REACT study participants 10 years after randomisation through case note review. Data were analysed using regression models adjusted for original treatment group allocation and changes in treatment group.
resultsWe found no statistically significant differences in outcomes by original treatment group over the 10 years. Those whose care remained with ACT, or transferred to ACT or forensic services, had more inpatient days over the 10 years (coefficient 223, 95% CI 83 to 363, p = 0.002) than those whose care remained with the CMHTs or were discharged to primary care. Being subject to a Community Treatment Order was associated with a greater chance of being under ACT at 10 year follow-up (OR 6.39, 95% CI 2.98 to 13.70, p <0.001).
conclusionsThe ACT teams in this study showed no clinical advantage over usual care provided by CMHTs at 10 year follow-up. We also found that the ACT teams accrued patients from the original study sample who had more complex needs than those who remained with or transferred to the CMHTs or primary care during this period. Further well conducted trials are needed to identify the most cost-effective approaches to supporting successful community living and optimum long term outcomes for this group.
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.