ReviewJournal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry
Evaluating the Proactive C-L Model: Insights and Unanswered Questions From the UK HOME Study.
Review in Journal of the Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
The HOME Study is the largest and among the most important trials in the history of consultation-liaison psychiatry, and its study team is to be commended for this landmark study. In this article, we provide context for the HOME Study and consider several aspects of the study critical to understanding the nature of the intervention and interpreting its results. First, we compare the model of proactive integrated consultation-liaison psychiatry as implemented in the HOME Study with versions of proactive consultation-liaison psychiatry as commonly practiced in the US. Key distinctions of proactive integrated consultation-liaison psychiatry include a direct assessment of all study arm participants by a consultation-liaison psychiatrist rather than the use of initial screening for acute psychiatric issues, the unique inclusion of an occupational therapist as a member of the proactive integrated consultation-liaison psychiatry team, and patient-level randomization as opposed to unit-based approaches as commonly practiced in the US. Next, we consider several characteristics of the HOME Study sample relevant to its generalizability. These include an average age of 82 years, limited ethnic and racial diversity, and a high prevalence of both cognitive and functional impairment. Third, we review how study methodology informs study interpretation. These include early trial termination due to COVID, which limits power to detect a 1-day reduction in hospital, a mean 3.5-day delay from hospital admission to study enrollment, and the exclusion of patients who had already received a psychiatric consultation, which likely reduced the acuity of mental health issues addressed in this study. Despite these considerations, the HOME Study is a truly remarkable contribution to the literature, and its results will be discussed for years to come. In view of the aging global population, the HOME Study set about to tackle an especially ambitious and forward-looking question by focusing exclusively on older hospitalized adults. Like all good studies, this trial raises many important questions. As the first randomized trial of proactive consultation-liaison psychiatry of any form, the HOME Study is an encouragement to the field to consider the range of potential benefits of providing proactive, integrated mental health care to medical and surgical inpatients with mental health needs.
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.