Innovations in Practice: Effectiveness of specialist adolescent outreach service for at‐risk adolescents

Abstract

Background Outcomes are reported for an assertive outreach team for adolescents that combines flexible service delivery (e.g. outreach) and broad‐ranging interventions. Method A retrospective evaluation over a 2‐year period from 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2008 examined rates of hospitalisation, engagement with education and scores on the Child Global Assessment Scale (CGAS). Results The sample showed statistically significant decreases in hospitalisation rates (from 47% to 17%) and increases in engagement with education (full‐time attendance from 23% to 56%). There was a mean increase of 7.4 points on the CGAS. Conclusion An intensive, flexible and broad‐ranging approach can be applied to adolescents who display at‐risk behaviours and/or have high risk factors for poor long‐term outcome.

The effect of youth assertive community treatment: a systematic PRISMA review

“…To assess the quality of the 13 studies, study designs are specified in Table 1 . Most studies had a pre-post design and lacked a control group [ 6 , 8 , 41 – 43 , 46 – 48 ]. One study used a quasi-experimental design with a control group, but patients were not randomized [ 40 ].…”

“…The included studies examined adolescents up to age 18, with a wide variety of psychiatric problems including substance abuse, psychotic, emotional, and developmental problems. Patients received youth-ACT as the only treatment [ 6 , 8 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 46 – 48 ] or as an aftercare program [ 49 , 50 , 52 ]. The average ages of included patients ranged from 15 to 17 years.…”

“…None of the reviewed studies included children below age 11. Studies were conducted in the United States [ 40 , 41 , 47 , 49 – 52 ], Switzerland [ 6 , 8 , 43 ], Australia [ 42 , 48 ], and Great Britain [ 46 ]. Most studies investigated a Caucasian sample.…”

“…Table 1 shows that girls formed a large majority in three samples [ 6 , 46 , 48 ]. In the other samples, boys formed the majority [ 8 , 40 – 43 , 47 , 49 – 52 ].…”

“…General functioning was measured with clinician-based instruments: the GAIN [ 56 ], Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) [ 60 ], Children’s Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) [ 61 ], and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) [ 46 ] or with a subscale of HoNOSCA [ 54 , 55 ]. Hospital admissions were assessed by examining medical files [ 46 – 48 , 52 ], or by applying a client-based self-developed structured audit questionnaire [ 42 ].…”