INTRODUCTION: We report participants' and case managers' use of and views on the value of Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs), shown to reduce compulsory hospitalisation and violence. METHOD:One hundred sixty people with psychosis or bipolar disorder participated in a randomized controlled trial. Intervention group participants were interviewed on receipt of the JCP, on hospitalisation, and at 15 month follow-ups; case managers were interviewed at 15 months. RESULTS:Sixty-two of the 65 people who received aJCP (95%) were interviewed at least once. Depending on the question, 46-96% of JCP holders (N = 44) responded positively to questions concerning the value of the JCP at immediate follow up. At 15 months the proportions of positive responses to the different questions was 14-82% (N = 50). Thirty-nine to eighty-five per cent of case managers (N = 28) responded positively at 15 months. Comparing the total scores of participants who had completed both the initial and follow up questionnaires showed a shift in responses, from positive to no change, from the immediate follow up to 15 months (means 6.1 vs. 8.3, difference 2.2, 95% CI 0.8, 3.7, P = 0.003) where a higher score indicates less positive views. The two items that received highest endorsement also showed least shift over time, i.e. whether the participant would recommend the JCP to others (90% initial vs. 82% at 15 months) and whether they felt more in control of their mental health problem as a result (71% at initial vs. 56% at 15 months). Case managers at 15 months were more positive than service users, with total score means of 5 vs. 7.8 (difference -2.8, 95% CI -4.5, -1.2, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The best supported hypothesis was that participants felt more in control of their mental health problem. Together with the previously reported outcomes, this suggests JCPs empower their holders to obtain their preferred care and treatment in a crisis. Further research is needed to more clearly identify the mechanisms of action of JCPs and how their initial positive impact can be sustained.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: We report participants' and case managers' use of and views on the value of Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs), shown to reduce compulsory hospitalisation and violence. METHOD: One hundred sixty people with psychosis or bipolar disorder participated in a randomized controlled trial. Intervention group participants were interviewed on receipt of the JCP, on hospitalisation, and at 15 month follow-ups; case managers were interviewed at 15 months. RESULTS: Sixty-two of the 65 people who received a JCP (95%) were interviewed at least once. Depending on the question, 46-96% of JCP holders (N = 44) responded positively to questions concerning the value of the JCP at immediate follow up. At 15 months the proportions of positive responses to the different questions was 14-82% (N = 50). Thirty-nine to eighty-five per cent of case managers (N = 28) responded positively at 15 months. Comparing the total scores of participants who had completed both the initial and follow up questionnaires showed a shift in responses, from positive to no change, from the immediate follow up to 15 months (means 6.1 vs. 8.3, difference 2.2, 95% CI 0.8, 3.7, P = 0.003) where a higher score indicates less positive views. The two items that received highest endorsement also showed least shift over time, i.e. whether the participant would recommend the JCP to others (90% initial vs. 82% at 15 months) and whether they felt more in control of their mental health problem as a result (71% at initial vs. 56% at 15 months). Case managers at 15 months were more positive than service users, with total score means of 5 vs. 7.8 (difference -2.8, 95% CI -4.5, -1.2, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The best supported hypothesis was that participants felt more in control of their mental health problem. Together with the previously reported outcomes, this suggests JCPs empower their holders to obtain their preferred care and treatment in a crisis. Further research is needed to more clearly identify the mechanisms of action of JCPs and how their initial positive impact can be sustained.
Authors: Debra S Srebnik; Lindsay T Rutherford; Tracy Peto; Joan Russo; Ellen Zick; Craig Jaffe; Paul Holtzheimer Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Jeffrey W Swanson; Marvin S Swartz; Eric B Elbogen; Richard A Van Dorn; Joelle Ferron; H Ryan Wagner; Barbara J McCauley; Mimi Kim Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Mimi M Kim; Richard A Van Dorn; Anna M Scheyett; Eric E Elbogen; Jeffrey W Swanson; Marvin S Swartz; Laura A McDaniel Journal: Psychiatry Date: 2007 Impact factor: 2.458
Authors: Paul Moran; Rohan Borschmann; Clare Flach; Barbara Barrett; Sarah Byford; Joanna Hogg; Morven Leese; Kim Sutherby; Claire Henderson; Diana Rose; Mike Slade; George Szmukler; Graham Thornicroft Journal: Trials Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Lee Valentine; Dawson Grace; Ingrid Pryor; Kate Buccilli; Marcus Sellars; Shona Francey; Magenta Simmons Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Claire Henderson; Simone Farrelly; Paul Moran; Rohan Borschmann; Graham Thornicroft; Max Birchwood; The Crimson Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Simone Farrelly; Helen Lester; Diana Rose; Max Birchwood; Max Marshall; Waquas Waheed; R Claire Henderson; George Szmukler; Graham Thornicroft Journal: Health Expect Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: S Farrelly; G Szmukler; C Henderson; M Birchwood; M Marshall; W Waheed; C Finnecy; G Thornicroft Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2013-09-10 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Yasser Khazaal; Rita Manghi; Marie Delahaye; Ariella Machado; Louise Penzenstadler; Andrew Molodynski Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2014-04-29
Authors: Barbara Barrett; Waquas Waheed; Simone Farrelly; Max Birchwood; Graham Dunn; Clare Flach; Claire Henderson; Morven Leese; Helen Lester; Max Marshall; Diana Rose; Kim Sutherby; George Szmukler; Graham Thornicroft; Sarah Byford Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 3.240