Case management for the mentally ill: a comparative evaluation of client satisfaction

Cullen, Deborah; Waite, Allyson; Oliver, Nicolás; Carson, Jerome; Holloway, Frank

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.1997.tb00105.x

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We added ten English language trials and five Chinese trials to those awaiting assessment and sought further information. Three trials which had been previously been awaiting assessment were able to be included as more reports had become available (Fekete 1998 now included as McDonel-Indiana, Holloway-UK, Shern-USA1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We, however, only rated the risk of bias in respect to primary outcome. Only three trials provided information for incomplete primary and secondary outcome data apart, and the risk of bias could be assessed separately (Holloway-UK, Johnston-Australia, REACT-UK). Nine trials were judged as adequately addressing incomplete outcome data and rated as low risk of attrition bias.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine trials were judged as adequately addressing incomplete outcome data and rated as low risk of attrition bias. Four of these were so rated because there were no missing outcome data (Bush-Georgia, Holloway-UK, REACT-UK, Sytema-Netherlands). Three more did make the number and reason for missing data explicit as well as balanced across groups (Audini-UK, Essock-Connecticut1, Johnston-Australia).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No further detailsAllocation concealment?Unclear riskNo details.Blinding?All outcomesUnclear riskPrimary outcome: clinician/participant mediated - rating - Unclear.Secondary outcomes: clinician/participant mediated - rating - UnclearIncomplete outcome data addressed?All outcomesUnclear riskMissing data are not addressed.Free of selective reporting?High riskNot all listed outcomes of interest are reported.Free of other bias?Low riskNo details. No evidence other bias are occurring. Holloway-UK…”

Section: Intensive Case Management Compared To Standard Care For Sevementioning

confidence: 95%

“…We acknowledge the following authors who provided us with further information on their trials through personal communication: Bjorkman-Sweden, Essock-Connecticut1, Essock-Connecticut2, Hargreaves-California, Holloway-UK, LEO-UK, Malm-Sweden, REACT-UK, Rutter-UK, Shern-USA2, Tyrer-UK.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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