SynthesisEuropean child & adolescent psychiatry2026
Efficacy of home treatment and inpatient treatment for children and adolescents in psychiatric crisis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European child & adolescent psychiatry, 2026. 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.
- Cost-utility analysis of home treatment versus inpatient treatment in child and adolescent psychiatry: a decision analysis.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inpatient treatment is widely used for children and adolescents in psychiatric crisis but may disrupt family life and routines. Home treatment offers a less restrictive alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared both approaches regarding psychopathology, family functioning, psychosocial functioning, and readmissions, considering post-treatment vs. follow-up effects and sequential vs. stand-alone models. Following PRISMA 2020, systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycInfo, and trial registries. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted where feasible, and certainty of evidence was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023458888). Fifteen studies (N = 617 participants) were included, with eleven contributing to meta-analyses. No significant differences were found between HT and IT for psychopathology, psychosocial functioning, or readmissions. A significant subgroup difference between post-treatment and follow-up was observed for psychosocial functioning (p = 0.0058), with inpatient treatment showing short-term advantages and HT more favorable outcomes at follow-up. Effects on psychopathology were small and non-significant, and readmission rates did not differ (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% CI [0.93-1.74]). Evidence on sequential models and family functioning was limited and showed no clear superiority of either approach. HT appears comparable to IT and may offer more sustained improvements in psychosocial functioning. Due to the limited quality of the included studies, these results should be interpreted with caution.
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.