Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38699887›Full record

ArticleBJPsych open2024

Evaluating changes in functioning and psychological distress in visitors of the @ease youth mental health walk-in centres.

Anouk Boonstra, Therese A M J van Amelsvoort, Rianne M C Klaassen, Arne Popma, Nina H Grootendorst-van Mil, Wim Veling, Remco F P de Winter, Nynke Boonstra, Sophie M J Leijdesdorff

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJPsych open, 2024. 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anouk BoonstraMental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs) Research Institute, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-9415
Therese A M J van AmelsvoortMental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs) Research Institute, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1135-5133
Rianne M C KlaassenDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Levvel, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3963-9114
Arne PopmaDepartment of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care, Amsterdam University Medical Center, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2170-3023
Nina H Grootendorst-van MilDepartment of Psychiatry, Erasmus University Medical Center, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1085-5534
Wim VelingUniversity Center for Psychiatry, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1364-9779
Remco F P de WinterMental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs) Research Institute, Maastricht University, The Netherlands; Mental Health Institute Rivierduinen, Leiden, The Netherlands; and Section Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-8440
Nynke BoonstraDepartment of Healthcare, NHL Stenden University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands; KieN VIP Metal Health Care Services, Friesland, The Netherlands; and Department of Psychiatry, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3592-1953
Sophie M J LeijdesdorffMental Health and Neuroscience (MHeNs) Research Institute, Maastricht University, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9930-3391

Funding

ZonMw
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHighly accessible youth initiatives worldwide aim to prevent worsening of mental health problems, but research into outcomes over time is scarce.

aimsThis study aimed to evaluate outcomes and support use in 12- to 15-year-old visitors of the @ease mental health walk-in centres, a Dutch initiative offering free counselling by trained and supervised peers.

methodData of 754 visitors, collected 2018-2022, included psychological distress (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation 10 (CORE-10)), social and occupational functioning (Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS)), school absenteeism and support use, analysed with change indicators (first to last visit), and mixed models (first three visits).

resultsAmong return visitors, 50.5% were female, 79.4% were in tertiary education and 36.9% were born outside of The Netherlands (one-time visitors: 64.7%, 72.9% and 41.3%, respectively). Moreover, 29.9% of return visitors presented with suicidal ideations, 97.1% had clinical psychological distress levels, and 64.1% of the latter had no support in the previous 3 months (one-time visitors: 27.2%, 90.7% and 71.1%, respectively). From visit 1 to 3, psychological distress decreased (

conclusionsReductions in psychological distress, improvements in functioning and high counselling satisfaction were found among @ease visitors, forming a basis for future research with a control group.

Indexed as

adolescentsearly interventionmental health servicesyoung peopleYouth mental health

Identifiers

PMID38699887
PMCPMC11094437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.