Trial reportBMC medicine2025
Feasibility testing and preliminary trial of a crisis planning and monitoring intervention to reduce compulsory readmissions: the FINCH Study.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2025. 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompulsory admissions to psychiatric hospitals have been rising in England and some other higher-income countries. Patients and families often find such admissions distressing, disempowering and traumatising. Evidence on how to prevent compulsory admissions is still very limited. Collaborative crisis planning currently appears to be the most promising way of reducing compulsory readmissions, but can be challenging to implement.
methodsThe overall aim of the FINCH (Feasibility trial of an INtervention to reduce Compulsory Hospitalisation) study was to develop a crisis planning and monitoring intervention to prevent repeat compulsory admissions, and to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of testing it through a randomised controlled trial. Drawing on a promising intervention developed in Switzerland and on qualitative interviews with service users and carers, a team including researchers, service users, carers and clinicians co-designed an intervention. This included formulating personalised plans for preventing and managing crises, with follow-up contacts over a year to support participants in implementing these. We carried out a feasibility randomised controlled trial of the intervention, with 80 participants recruited towards the end of compulsory hospital admissions in three areas of England.
resultsEighty participants were recruited within our target timeframe, 40 (as planned) from ethnic groups at disproportionately high risk of compulsory admission. Data were obtained for 86% of participants on compulsory admission, identified as a potential primary outcome for a full trial, but only for 51% on secondary outcomes measured at interview. Twenty-five of the 38 experimental group participants (66%) received at least three intervention sessions and developed a crisis plan of some kind. Qualitative data obtained from participating service users and carers suggested the intervention was acceptable and feasible, but that a high level of persistence and flexibility and considerable time were needed to deliver it.
conclusionsWe were readily able to recruit for this study, including from ethnic groups who are at high risk of compulsory admission, and delivery of our study intervention was feasible at least in a minimum form. Given the high financial and human costs of compulsory admission, there is an ethical and practical requirement for more research in this area: larger-scale research based on a refined version of our intervention has the potential to contribute.
trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN11627644. Registered prospectively 25th May 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11627644 .
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.