Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30014544›Full record

ArticleHealth economics2018

The impact of waiting time on patient outcomes: Evidence from early intervention in psychosis services in England.

Anika Reichert, Rowena Jacobs

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

2 authors.

Anika ReichertCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9279-6509
Rowena JacobsCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5225-6321

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, new emphasis was put on reducing waiting times in mental health services as there is an ongoing concern that longer waiting time for treatment leads to poorer health outcomes. However, little is known about delays within the mental health service system and its impact on patients. We explore the impact of waiting times on patient outcomes in the context of early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services in England from April 2012 to March 2015. We use the Mental Health Services Data Set and the routine outcome measure the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale. In a generalised linear regression model, we control for baseline outcomes, previous service use, and treatment intensity to account for possible endogeneity in waiting time. We find that longer waiting time is significantly associated with a deterioration in patient outcomes 12 months after acceptance for treatment for patients that are still in EIP care. Effects are strongest for waiting times longer than 3 months, and effect sizes are small to moderate. Patients with shorter treatment periods are not affected. The results suggest that policies should aim to reduce excessively long waits in order to improve outcomes for patients waiting for treatment for psychosis.

Indexed as

Mental Health ServicesOutcome Assessment, Health CareWaiting ListsAdultEnglandFemaleHumansMalePsychotic DisordersSocioeconomic FactorsTime Factorsmental healthpsychosisroutine outcome measurestreatment intensitywaiting times

Identifiers

PMID30014544
PMCPMC6221005

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.