Untitled

Dekker, J.; Wijdenes, W.; Koning, Y.-A.; Gardien, R.; Hermandes-Willenborg, L.; Nusselder, Hans

doi:10.1023/a:1019816613834

Cited by 17 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also noted that recent suicide attempts and multiple hospital admissions were the best predictors of future attempts. Dekker et al (2002) looked at the possibility that the risk for suicide in ACT clients might in fact increase given that these clients were living in the community rather than on an inpatient ward. The researchers found no difference in suicide rates between groups but suggested that longer follow-up may be needed to fully understand the issue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Suicidality in Seriously Mentally Ill Clients of Two Intensive Community Mental Health Programs

LangleyJohn

GehrsMargaret

WasylenkiDonald

et al. 2009

Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of two intensive community mental health programs on the suicidality of clients with serious mental illness. Eighty individuals with severe and persistent mental illness were enrolled in this randomized controlled study comparing two models of intensive community support: Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Intensive Case Management (ICM). Suicidal ideation and behaviours were measured using the Modified Scale for Suicide Ideation. Study clients underwent comprehensive interviews at baseline and were reinterviewed 9 and 18 months later. The Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS) instrument was used to gain more insight into the specific ACT and ICM program structures and characteristics that provide crisis support and suicide intervention. A chart review of 2 randomly chosen months of service looked at the on-call after-hours pager use of ACT program clients. The ACT intervention was effective in reducing suicidal ideation over 18 months. In addition, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was significantly lower at 18 months in ACT clients versus ICM clients. This is the first study to suggest that ACT may confer some additional benefit in terms of reduced suicidality in clients with severe and persistent mental illness.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Suicidality in Seriously Mentally Ill Clients of Two Intensive Community Mental Health Programs

LangleyJohn

GehrsMargaret

WasylenkiDonald

et al. 2009

Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

Dieterich

Irving

Bergman

et al. 2010

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

272

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input. Objectives To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting. Search methods For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings. Selection criteria All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought. Data collection and analysis We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses. We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention’s fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. Main results We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM. 1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD −0.86 CI −1.37 to −0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD −0.62 CI −1.00 to −0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I2=49%, p=0.05). One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care ...

show abstract