Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34519947›Full record

ReviewCommunity mental health journal2022

The History of Coordinated Specialty Care for Early Intervention in Psychosis in the United States: A Review of Effectiveness, Implementation, and Fidelity.

Halley Read, Brandon A Kohrt

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Community mental health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Halley ReadSchool of Occupational Therapy, College of Health Professions, Pacific University, Forest Grove, OR, USA. readh@pacificu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-7179-2445
Brandon A KohrtDepartment of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
George Washington University · USPacific University Oregon · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) is a multidisciplinary team approach to providing care for young and emerging adults having their first episode of psychosis. CSC programs have expanded rapidly throughout the United States going from 12 programs in 2008 to over 160 programs a decade later. The purpose of this historical review is to document the process and conditions that led to the accelerated dissemination of these programs across the country. CSC models began in the US in the early 2000s, but nationwide expansion followed the 2008 Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode trial. As programs have grown, debates have risen about fidelity to CSC models. The challenges facing CSC programs today include lack of evidence on what are the core components of CSC and how fidelity monitoring relates to positive client outcomes.

Indexed as

Psychotic DisordersSchizophreniaAdultHumansUnited StatesCoordinated specialty careEarly intervention psychosisFidelityFirst episode psychosis

Identifiers

PMID34519947
OpenAlexW3201267609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.