OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of psychiatric clinical case management. METHOD: Subjects with at least three admissions in the previous 2 years were randomized into a clinical case management group (CMG; n = 122) and a standard care group (SCG; n = 95). Individuals who refused or were not located were included in a third, non-randomized no-treatment group (NTG; n = 153). Parameters assessed included utilization of in-patient services and psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: We found no difference between the CMG and the SCG in psychosocial functioning as evaluated by interviewers, and no difference between the three groups in hospitalization. In subjects' self-ratings, the CMG showed slight improvement in psychosocial functioning. CONCLUSION: Clinical case management did not prove itself superior to standard care in a revolving door population.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of psychiatric clinical case management. METHOD: Subjects with at least three admissions in the previous 2 years were randomized into a clinical case management group (CMG; n = 122) and a standard care group (SCG; n = 95). Individuals who refused or were not located were included in a third, non-randomized no-treatment group (NTG; n = 153). Parameters assessed included utilization of in-patient services and psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: We found no difference between the CMG and the SCG in psychosocial functioning as evaluated by interviewers, and no difference between the three groups in hospitalization. In subjects' self-ratings, the CMG showed slight improvement in psychosocial functioning. CONCLUSION: Clinical case management did not prove itself superior to standard care in a revolving door population.
Authors: Laia Mas-Expósito; Juan Antonio Amador-Campos; Juana Gómez-Benito; Lluís Mauri-Mas; Lluís Lalucat-Jo Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2014-06-28
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Jesmin Antony; Noah M Ivers; Huda M Ashoor; Paul A Khan; Erik Blondal; Marco Ghassemi; Heather MacDonald; Maggie H Chen; Lianne Kark Ezer; Sharon E Straus Journal: CMAJ Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 8.262