Trial reportPloS one2026
Relational care in community mental health: Evaluating staff experiences in Intensive Community Care Services (ICCS) vs treatment as usual.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of healthcare delivery relies heavily on building strong relationships between healthcare providers (HCPs) and clients. This study presents the results of a process evaluation for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) examining the effectiveness of Intensive Community Care Service (ICCS) vs Treatment as Usual (TAU; inpatient or core community CAMHS).
methodsThirty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff across various services, including 20 from ICCS and 14 other TAU services. A thematic decomposition analysis was conducted on the data, and specific themes relevant to staff experiences of young people's engagement with services and overall recovery.
resultsThree main themes were observed in the HCP data (1. Relational Ecologies: barriers and enablers to engagement, 2. flexibility of approach amidst systemic pressures and 3. the web of trust in the relationship-building process). HCPs highlighted the necessity of developing trust and rapport through non-clinical engagement strategies, such as informal visits and personalised interactions. HCPs emphasised that without trust, treatment effectiveness diminishes, necessitating a tailored approach rather than a one-size-fits-all model. The flexibility in duration of treatment and methods of engagement was noted as crucial in accommodating individual client needs and fostering an open, trusting environment necessary for long-term recovery.
conclusionThe findings highlight the vital importance of relational care models, especially ICCS, in addressing the complex needs of Children and Young People (CYP). Flexible, family-centred approaches improve trust, engagement, and long-term recovery outcomes. Recommendations include tackling systemic barriers and expanding relational care models within CAMHS to meet increasing mental health demands effectively. Further research should investigate scalable strategies for integrating these insights into wider mental health service frameworks.
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.