Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41361428›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2025

Mobile crisis effectiveness: a systematic review and associated functions and forms framework.

Robert L Peters, Jeremy Fine, Helen Newton, Gregory W Dalack, Amy Watson, Kristen Hassmiller Lich

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Robert L Peters *Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive 1101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, 27599-7411, NC, USA. rlpeters432@gmail.com.
Jeremy Fine *Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive 1101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, 27599-7411, NC, USA.
Helen NewtonGillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive 1101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, 27599-7411, NC, USA.
Gregory W DalackDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Anne Arbor, USA.
Amy WatsonDepartment of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, USA.
Kristen Hassmiller LichGillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive 1101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7411, Chapel Hill, 27599-7411, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreased demand for mental health crisis services and falling supply of inpatient psychiatric beds in the United States (U.S.) has led to heavy investment in mobile crisis units (MCUs), teams of mental health professionals that de-escalate crises in the community and aim to prevent emergency department visits, arrests, self-harm, etc. Despite nearly two thousand such services being active in the U.S., the last review of MCUs, conducted in 1995, found no evidence of their effectiveness. It is not known if newer research validates the effectiveness of this widely used intervention, nor how aligned the goals and functions of the many MCUs are. This article systematically reviews the literature since 2000 to determine the effectiveness of MCUs in the U.S. and create a theoretical framework of their functions and forms to aid future research efforts.

methodsA systematic review was conducted by using a keyword search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus. Articles were included through June 2025 and excluded if they were published before 2000 or were not from the U.S. Quality of included articles was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. The Functions and Forms Framework for describing complex healthcare interventions was used to identify the core elements of MCUs and design a theoretical framework for their functions.

resultsOf the 134 studies included in title/abstract screening, nine met inclusion criteria and were found to be medium or high quality. One quasi-experimental study found evidence against MCU effectiveness, one randomized controlled trial found little evidence of MCU effectiveness, and four quasi-experimental studies, one pretest-posttest, one qualitative, and one retrospective cohort study found evidence supporting MCU effectiveness. Primary functions of MCUs included hospital diversion, justice-system diversion, and providing accessible patient-centered care in the community.

conclusionsThe limited evidence uncovered in this review offers tentative support for MCU effectiveness. However, the current literature is too sparse to draw firm or generalized conclusions. An initial theoretical framework was created to help practitioners and policymakers document the functions and forms of MCUs to increase the comparability of these services, and research recommendations were generated to fill gaps in the literature.

Indexed as

Crisis InterventionMental DisordersMobile Health UnitsHumansUnited StatesBehavioral health crisisCommunity-based servicesCrisis interventionCrisis responseEmergency psychiatric servicesImplementation scienceMental health crisisMobile crisisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41361428
PMCPMC12801951

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.