ArticleCommunity mental health journal2026
Community-Based Crisis Care Beyond the Emergency Department: A Scoping Review.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Suicide and mental ill-health remain a major global concern, reflected by rising emergency department presentations, however there is growing recognition that these settings often do not meet the needs of individuals in crisis. These settings are often experienced as crowded, traumatic, and poorly equipped for psychological distress, underscoring the need for accessible, community-based alternatives that offer safer, more supportive responses during crisis. This scoping review examines the needs, motivations, and experiences of people using community-based alternatives to emergency departments and explores how peer support and lived experience are embedded in these models. A scoping review was conducted across five academic databases and grey literature sources for publications from the last 20 years. Eligible records included any study design such as quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods research, service evaluations, and descriptive reports. Records were required to describe short-term, community-based crisis services for adults. Studies involving telehealth, mobile crisis, or hospital-based care were excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve papers (n = 8 mixed methods, n = 3 qualitative, n = 1 quantitative) were eligible for inclusion. Studies spanned five countries, were mostly published in the past decade, and examined a range of non-clinical crisis models, including crisis cafés, respite centers, stabilization units, and peer-led services. Interventions commonly supported people experiencing suicidal distress, acute anxiety, depression, or significant life stressors. Peer support was central in most models and linked to reduced distress, greater emotional connection, and, in some cases, lower ED use. Barriers included limited availability, geographical inaccessibility, funding constraints, and insufficient aftercare. The diversity of study designs and the limited evaluation data made it difficult to draw broader conclusions about the existing evidence. Long-term outcomes and economic impacts were rarely reported, and few studies compared peer-led and non-peer models. Place-based, community alternatives offer promising, person-centered options for people in distress and may complement existing suicide prevention efforts. Addressing accessibility and funding challenges, along with further research on outcomes and peer support, will help strengthen their role in crisis care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42298175What 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.