ArticleBMC psychiatry2024
Patient-reported outcome, clinician-reported outcome, and patient satisfaction with treatment by crisis resolution teams: a multicenter pre-post study of outcome and associated factors in Norway.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCrisis resolution teams (CRTs) have become a part of mental health services in many high-income countries. Many studies have investigated the impact of CRTs on acute admissions to inpatient units, but very few studies have investigated patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes for CRT service users. Our aims were to study patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes of CRT treatment, how the outcomes were associated with characteristics of the service user and the treatment, and whether outcomes were different across CRTs.
methodsThe study was a pre-post observational multicenter study of 475 patients receiving treatment from 25 CRTs in urban and rural areas in Norway. There was no control group. Outcomes were change in mental health status reported by service users using CORE-10 and by clinicians using HoNOS. Patient satisfaction was measured using CSQ-8 at the end of the treatment. Components of CRT accessibility and interventions were measured by clinicians reporting details on each session with the service user. CRT model fidelity was measured using the CORE CRT Fidelity Scale version 2. We used paired t-tests to analyze outcomes and linear mixed modeling to analyze associations of the outcomes with the characteristics of service users and the treatment provided. Using independent t-tests, we analyzed differences in outcomes and patient satisfaction between two clusters of CRTs with differences in accessibility.
resultsThe patient-reported outcomes and the clinician-reported outcomes were significantly positive and with a large effect size. Both were significantly positively associated with practical support and medication management and negatively associated with collaboration with mental health inpatient units. Patient satisfaction was high at the end of the treatment. CRTs with higher accessibility had a significantly better clinician-reported outcome, but no significant differences were reported for patient-reported outcomes or patient satisfaction.
conclusionsCRT treatment led to improved symptom status as reported by patients and clinicians, as well as high patient satisfaction. Practical support and medication management were the interventions most strongly associated with positive outcomes. Some of the variations in outcomes were at the team level. Patient- and clinician-reported outcomes should be used more in studies on the effect of treatment provided by crisis resolution teams.
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.