ArticleBMC psychiatry2023
Consultations for refractory cases in mental health services: a descriptive study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYearly, almost six percent, which is more than 1,000.000 people, in the Netherlands receive mental health treatment, which usually improves their quality of life. Concurrently, mental healthcare professionals recognize clinically refractory cases in which improvement fails to occur, with severe ongoing burdens for patients. The Dutch Centre for Consultation and Expertise (CCE) is available to support such refractory cases. The Dutch government's (financial) facilitation of consultation through the CCE is unique in the world. CCE consultations provide therefore unique insight into and an overview of refractory cases in mental health services. The objective of this study was to gain insight into the commonalities underlying the reasons for CCE consultations and the solutions proposed that play roles in (the reduction of) refractory cases for which consultation has been requested.
methodsThis descriptive study was conducted with quantitative and qualitative data from 472 CCE consultations in the Netherlands. Using descriptive statistics and thematic content analysis, four exemplary situations were distilled from the qualitative data.
resultsMost (83%) cases in the sample could be explained with four exemplary situations involving self-harm (24.2%), aggression (21.8%), self-neglect (24.4%), and socially unacceptable behavior (12.5%), respectively. Each situation could be characterized by a specific interaction pattern that unintentionally maintained or aggravated the situation. At the time of closure of the consultation applicants' questions had been answered and their situations had improved in 60.4% of cases.
conclusionsThis study offers an overview of approaches that provided new perspectives for patients and professionals in many refractory cases in the Dutch mental health services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.