Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38601094›Full record

ReviewConsortium psychiatricum2021

Organization of Community Psychiatric Services in Finland.

Jyrki Korkeila

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Consortium psychiatricum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jyrki KorkeilaUniversity of Turku.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7933-5158
University of Turku · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Finnish psychiatric treatment system has undergone a rapid transformation from operating in institutional settings to a adopting a community-based approach, through implementation of national plans; this process was carried out quickly, due to a severe economic recession in the early 1990s. Methods: This paper is a narrative review, based on relevant documents by national authorities, academic dissertations and published scientific literature, between 1984 and 2018, as well as the interviews of key experts in 2019. Results: The municipality is currently the primary organization, responsible for all health services. Municipalities may also work together in organizing the services, either through unions of municipalities or hospital districts. Services are to a great extent outpatient-oriented. The number of beds is one fifth of the previous number, around four decades ago, despite the increase in population. In 2017, 191,895 patients in total (4% of Finns) had used outpatient psychiatric services, and the number of visits totalled 2.25 million. Psychotherapy is mainly carried out in the private sector by licensed psychotherapists. Homelessness in relation to discharged psychiatric patients has not been in evidence in Finland and deinstitutionalization has not caused an increase in the mortality rate among individuals with severe mental disorders. Conclusion: Psychiatric patients have, in general, benefitted greatly from the shift from institutions to the community. This does not preclude the fact that there are also shortcomings. The development of community care has, to date, focused too heavily on resource allocation, at the expense of strategic planning, and too little on methods of treatment.

Indexed as

community psychiatrydevelopmentoutcomeuse of services

Identifiers

PMID38601094
PMCPMC11003348
OpenAlexW4244356404

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.