ArticleBMJ open2025
What is known about flexible assertive community treatment across populations and contexts? A scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Assertive Community Treatment and ACT-Derived Outreach Models: A Scoping Review of Adaptations, Fidelity and Outcomes.Community mental health journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this scoping review is to elucidate contexts in which Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) has been utilised, which populations it has served, how it has been adapted and what outcomes it has achieved. FACT is a model of mental healthcare where patients are transitioned along a continuum of high-intensity outreach-based treatment and lower-intensity case management, according to need. Despite being adopted globally, a review of the evidence on the FACT model has not been conducted since 2014. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A structured search of several electronic databases (MedLine, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Psychology & Behavioural Sciences, Embase, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts and ASSIA Social Sciences Index Abstracts) will be conducted to locate relevant studies addressing models of care that adhere to the core components of the FACT model and that were published in English or Dutch from 2003 (model conception date) to the present day. To explore the range of populations served by FACT, we will not limit participant populations by age or diagnosis. With respect to FACT adaptations, we will include articles that explore modifications to the structure of FACT such as staffing complement, caseloads or interface with other health and social services. Articles identified from our structured searches will be screened independently by two reviewers. Data from included articles will be extracted, analysed and presented on tables and visual graphs, and summarised in a narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our scoping review does not require ethics approval as it does not involve human subjects and will draw evidence from published peer-reviewed articles. Our findings will be disseminated through journal publication, presentations at relevant conferences and distribution across our networks and those of our partners, including healthcare providers, researchers and other key stakeholders.
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.