ArticlePloS one2024
Professional relationships during crisis interventions: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Service users' perspectives on acute, outreach and outpatient psychiatric crisis interventions with and without peer support: results of a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Effect of crisis resolution team treatment on crisis experience and crisis coping: a multicenter pre-post study in Norway.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Exploring the Relationship Needs of Service Users During Crisis Interventions: A Qualitative Study.Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA crisis can be described as subjective experience that threatens and overwhelms a person's ability to handle a specific situation. In dealing with crises some people are looking for support from professionals. The "professional relationship" between people experiencing a crisis and professionals plays an important role in the successful management of a crisis which has been widely researched in many contexts. However, regarding outpatient services (e. g. crisis resolution home treatment teams), yet empirical evidence remains limited.
objectiveWe aim to explore descriptions of supportive professional relationships during outpatient crisis interventions in empirical literature. Accordingly, a scoping review was conducted to identify types of evidence, map the key concepts, and point out research gaps.
methodsMEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Social Science Citation Index were searched for studies reporting empirical data on the professional relationship between people experiencing a crisis (18+) and professionals (e. g. social workers, psychiatrists) during a crisis intervention, defined as a short-term, face-to-face, low threshold, time-limited, outpatient, and voluntary intervention to cope with crises. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2007, in languages other than English and German, and if they couldn't be accessed. Included studies were summarized, compared, and synthesized using qualitative content analyses.
results3.741 records were identified, of which 8 met the eligibility criteria. Only one study directly focused on the relationship; the others addressed varied aspects. Two studies explored the perspectives of service users, five focused on those of the professionals and one study examined both. The empirical literature was categorized into three main themes: strategies used to develop a supportive professional relationship, factors influencing the relationship and the nature of these relationships. DISCUSSION: The results reveal a gap in understanding the nature of supportive professional relationships from the service users' perspective, as well as how professionals construct these relationships.
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.