Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29299613›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of public health2018

The effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women's shelters: a randomized controlled trial.

Danielle A M Lako, Mariëlle D Beijersbergen, Irene E Jonker, Renée de Vet, Daniel B Herman, Albert M van Hemert, Judith R L M Wolf

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Danielle A M LakoImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Mariëlle D BeijersbergenImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Irene E JonkerImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Renée de VetImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Daniel B HermanSilberman 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, The Netherlands.
Judith R L M WolfImpuls - Netherlands Center for Social Care Research, Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. judith.wolf@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLAmsterdam University of Applied Sciences · NLCity University of New York · USLeiden University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

Academic Collaborative Center for Shelter and Recovery Not applicableNetherlands Organization for Health Research and Development 101200001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine the effectiveness of critical time intervention (CTI)-an evidence-based intervention-for abused women transitioning from women's shelters to community living.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted in nine women's shelters across the Netherlands. 136 women were assigned to CTI (n = 70) or care-as-usual (n = 66). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat three-level mixed-effects models.

resultsWomen in the CTI group had significant fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress (secondary outcome) (adjusted mean difference - 7.27, 95% CI - 14.31 to - 0.22) and a significant fourfold reduction in unmet care needs (intermediate outcome) (95% CI 0.06-0.94) compared to women in the care-as-usual group. No differences were found for quality of life (primary outcome), re-abuse, symptoms of depression, psychological distress, self-esteem (secondary outcomes), family support, and social support (intermediate outcomes).

conclusionsThis study shows that CTI is effective in a population of abused women in terms of a reduction of post-traumatic stress symptoms and unmet care needs. Because follow-up ended after the prescribed intervention period, further research is needed to determine the full long-term effects of CTI in this population.

Indexed as

AdultBattered WomenFemaleHumansIll-Housed PersonsIndependent LivingMiddle AgedNetherlandsQuality of LifeTime FactorsAbused womenInterventionIntimate partner violenceQuality of lifeRCTWomen’s shelters

Identifiers

PMID29299613
PMCPMC5938300
OpenAlexW2782351323

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.