↓ Skip to main content

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
76 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Intensive case management for severe mental illness
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007906.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina Dieterich, Claire B Irving, Hanna Bergman, Mariam A Khokhar, Bert Park, Max Marshall

Abstract

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. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input. To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use). We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015). 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 ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care. At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (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% 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. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials. The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state.1. ICM versus standard careWhen ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence).2. ICM versus non-ICMWhen ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence).3. Fidelity to ACTWithin the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027). Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital.However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 76 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Uganda 1 <1%
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 22%
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Researcher 26 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 41 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 19%
Psychology 32 14%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 10 4%
Unknown 51 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2020.
All research outputs
#369,960
of 15,330,882 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#890
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,441
of 383,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,330,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 383,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.