Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32546224›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Similarities and differences in people accessing prevention and recovery care services and inpatient units in Victoria, Australia.

Georgina Sutherland, Carol Harvey, Holly Tibble, Matthew J Spittal, John Farhall, Justine Fletcher, Graham Meadows, J Richard Newton, Ruth Vine, Lisa Brophy

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Georgina SutherlandMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. georgina.sutherland@unimelb.edu.au.
Carol HarveyPsychosocial Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Holly TibbleUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Matthew J SpittalMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
John FarhallDepartment of Psychology and Counselling, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Justine FletcherMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Graham MeadowsSouthern Synergy, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.
J Richard NewtonDept of Psychiatry, Monash University, Peninsula Mental Health Service, Frankston, VIC, Australia.
Ruth VineNorthWestern Mental Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Lisa BrophyMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1115907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an emerging international literature demonstrating clinical and cost-effectiveness of sub-acute residential mental health services. To date, however, there is limited information on the profile of consumers accessing these models of care. This study aimed to understand the profile of the population served by adult sub-acute residential mental health services in Victoria, Australia (known as Prevention and Recovery Care; PARC) and to compare PARC service consumers with consumers admitted to psychiatric inpatient units within public hospitals.

methodUsing 5 years (2012-2016) of a state-wide database of routinely collected individual level mental health service data, we describe the socio-demographic and clinical profile of PARC service consumers compared to consumers of psychiatric inpatient units including for primary diagnosis and illness severity. Using admissions as the unit of analysis, we identify the characteristics that distinguish PARC service admissions from psychiatric inpatient admissions. We also examine and compare length of stay for the different admission types.

resultsWe analysed 78,264 admissions representing 34,906 individuals. The profile of PARC service consumers differed from those admitted to inpatient units including for sex, age, diagnosis and illness severity. The odds of an admission being to a PARC service was associated with several socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Being male or in the youngest age grouping (< 20 years) significantly reduced the odds of admission to PARC services. The presence of primary diagnoses of schizophrenia and related disorders, mood, anxiety or personality disorders, all significantly increased the odds of admission to PARC services. Predictors of length of stay were consistent across PARC and inpatient admission types.

conclusionsOur findings suggest PARC services may serve an overlapping but distinguishably different consumer group than inpatient psychiatric units. Future research on sub-acute mental health services should be cognizant of these consumer differences, particularly when assessing the long-term effectiveness of this service option.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental Health ServicesResidential FacilitiesAdultFemaleHospital UnitsHumansInpatientsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient AdmissionSeverity of Illness IndexSocioeconomic FactorsVictoriaYoung AdultConsumer profileMental health serviceResidential unitRoutinely collected dataSub-acute

Identifiers

PMID32546224
PMCPMC7296697

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.