ArticleBMJ open2024
Effectiveness of a peer-supported crisis intervention to reduce the proportion of compulsory admissions in acute psychiatric crisis interventions in an outreach and outpatient setting: study protocol for an exploratory cluster randomised trial combined with qualitative methods.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- [Peer support in acute outreach psychiatric crisis interventions: results of a qualitative study].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCompulsory admissions are associated with feelings of fear, humiliation and powerlessness. The number of compulsory admissions in Germany and other high-income countries has increased in recent years. Peer support has been shown to increase the self-efficacy of individuals with mental health conditions in acute crises and to reduce the use of coercive measures in clinical settings. The objective of this study is to reduce the number of compulsory admissions by involving peer support workers (PSWs) in acute mental health crises in outreach and outpatient settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This one-year intervention is an exploratory, cluster randomised study. Trained PSWs will join the public crisis intervention services (CIS) in two of five regions (the intervention regions) in the city of Bremen (Germany). PSWs will participate in crisis interventions and aspects of the mental health services. They will be involved in developing and conducting an antistigma training for police officers. The remaining three regions will serve as control regions. All individuals aged 18 and older who experience an acute mental health crisis during the operating hours of the regional CIS in the city of Bremen (around 2000 in previous years) will be included in the study. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with PSWs, 30 patients from control and intervention regions, as well as two focus group discussions with CIS staff. A descriptive comparison between all participants in the intervention and control regions will assess the proportion of compulsory admissions in crisis interventions during the baseline and intervention years, including an analysis of temporal changes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bremen (file 2022-09) on 20 June 2022. The results will be presented via scientific conferences, scientific journals and communicated to policy-makers and practitioners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00029377.
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.