Observational studyThe Psychiatric quarterly2025
Who Benefits from Home Treatment? Predictors of Treatment Outcome in an Acute Psychiatric Setting: an Observational Study.
Observational study in The Psychiatric quarterly, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intensive home treatment: an exploratory study on when patients in psychiatric crises benefit.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematic reviews have confirmed that home treatment (HT) is an appropriate alternative to conventional inpatient treatment. So far, research on predictors for treatment outcomes of HT has been rather inconsistent, and potential predictors have not been systematically investigated yet. This exploratory study has a prospective naturalistic design with repeated measurements of symptoms, well-being, and self-efficacy at baseline, at post-assessment (discharge from HT) and at follow-up. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out to measure changes between assessment points. Changes in emotion regulation were analysed between baseline and post-assessment using t-tests. Potential predictor variables were assessed at baseline. Linear regression models were estimated with post scores of symptoms, well-being, self-efficacy and emotion regulation as dependent variables and potential predictors as independent variables. 58 patients participated in the study. Significant differences between baseline and post-assessment were found for psychiatric symptoms, well-being, self-efficacy and emotion regulation. No significant changes were found at follow-up. Of the investigated potential predictors, three significantly predicted outcome of HT: Patients with former treatments in a psychiatric institution had significantly higher post-assessment in symptoms (β = .26, p = .04) and lower well-being (β = -.28, p = .02) compared to patients without former treatment in a psychiatric institution. Furthermore, hope for change and symptoms of anxiety were found to be predictors of outcome. General improvement in symptoms and well-being indicate that HT was effective. Previous psychiatric history, hope of improvement and anxiety were identified as predictors of treatment outcome.
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.