Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26573154›Full record

ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2017

Critical Time Intervention for People Leaving Shelters in the Netherlands: Assessing Fidelity and Exploring Facilitators and Barriers.

Renée de Vet, Danielle A M Lako, Mariëlle D Beijersbergen, Linda van den Dries, Sarah Conover, Albert M van Hemert, Daniel B Herman, Judith R L M Wolf

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Renée de VetImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Danielle A M LakoImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Mariëlle D BeijersbergenImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Linda van den DriesImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Sarah ConoverSilberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Albert M van HemertDepartment of Psychiatry, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Daniel B HermanSilberman School of Social Work at Hunter College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA.
Judith R L M WolfImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, Netherlands. judith.wolf@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLCity University of New York · USHunter College · USLeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

International dissemination of evidence-based interventions calls for rigorous evaluation. As part of an evaluation of critical time intervention (CTI) for homeless people and abused women leaving Dutch shelters, this study assessed fidelity in two service delivery systems and explored factors influencing model adherence. Data collection entailed chart review (n = 70) and two focus groups with CTI workers (n = 11). The intervention obtained an overall score of three out of five (fairly implemented) for compliance fidelity and chart quality combined. Fidelity did not differ significantly between service systems, supporting its suitability for a range of populations. The eight themes that emerged from the focus groups as affecting model adherence provide guidance for future implementation efforts.

Indexed as

HousingIll-Housed PersonsEvidence-Based PracticeFemaleFocus GroupsHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceMedical AuditModels, OrganizationalNetherlandsTime FactorsCritical time interventionHomelessnessIntimate partner violenceModel fidelity

Identifiers

PMID26573154
PMCPMC5225207
OpenAlexW2196585484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.