BACKGROUND: The only randomised trial of assertive community treatment (ACT) carried out in England (the "REACT" study: randomised evaluation of assertive community treatmentin North London) found no clinically significant advantage over usual care from community mental health teams (CMHTs). However, ACT clients were more satisfied and better engaged with services. To understand these findings better, we investigated the content of care and interventions offered to study participants. METHOD: Quantitative data were collected to compare team structures and processes. Qualitative interviews with care co-ordinators of 40 of the 251 REACT study participants (20 ACT, 20 CMHT clients) were carried out and thematic analysis was used to explore differences in the approaches of the two types of team. RESULTS: CMHTs scored low for ACT model fidelity and ACTTs scored high or ACT-like. All staff cited client engagement as their primary aim, but ACT approaches were less formal, more frequent and more successful than CMHTs'. Two aspects of ACT appeared important for engagement: small case loads and the team approach. Successful client engagement appeared to be associated with greater staff satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study assist in understanding why the ACT approach is more acceptable to clients deemed by CMHTs as "hard to engage". The key elements of ACT that facilitate client engagement may not be easily replicated within CMHTs due to their larger, varied caseloads.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The only randomised trial of assertive community treatment (ACT) carried out in England (the "REACT" study: randomised evaluation of assertive community treatment in North London) found no clinically significant advantage over usual care from community mental health teams (CMHTs). However, ACT clients were more satisfied and better engaged with services. To understand these findings better, we investigated the content of care and interventions offered to study participants. METHOD: Quantitative data were collected to compare team structures and processes. Qualitative interviews with care co-ordinators of 40 of the 251 REACT study participants (20 ACT, 20 CMHT clients) were carried out and thematic analysis was used to explore differences in the approaches of the two types of team. RESULTS: CMHTs scored low for ACT model fidelity and ACTTs scored high or ACT-like. All staff cited client engagement as their primary aim, but ACT approaches were less formal, more frequent and more successful than CMHTs'. Two aspects of ACT appeared important for engagement: small case loads and the team approach. Successful client engagement appeared to be associated with greater staff satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study assist in understanding why the ACT approach is more acceptable to clients deemed by CMHTs as "hard to engage". The key elements of ACT that facilitate client engagement may not be easily replicated within CMHTs due to their larger, varied caseloads.
Authors: M Marshall; G Bond; L I Stein; G Shepherd; J McGrew; J Hoult; A Rosen; P Huxley; R J Diamond; R Warner; M Olsen; E Latimer; P Goering; T K Craig; N Meisler; M A Test Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Christine Wright; Tom Burns; Peter James; Joanne Billings; Sonia Johnson; Matt Muijen; Stefan Priebe; Iain Ryrie; Joanna Watts; Ian White Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: K E A Burns; L Rizvi; O M Smith; Y Lee; J Lee; M Wang; M Brown; M Parker; A Premji; D Leung; M Hammond Mobilio; L Gotlib-Conn; R Nisenbaum; M Santos; Y Li; S Mehta Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mike Firn; Keelyjo Hindhaugh; Dieneke Hubbeling; Gwyn Davies; Ben Jones; Sarah Jane White Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2012-10-21 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Byron J Powell; Enola K Proctor; Charles A Glisson; Patricia L Kohl; Ramesh Raghavan; Ross C Brownson; Bradley P Stoner; Christopher R Carpenter; Lawrence A Palinkas Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jolanda Stobbe; André I Wierdsma; Rob M Kok; Hans Kroon; Bert-Jan Roosenschoon; Marja Depla; Cornelis L Mulder Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-02-15 Impact factor: 3.630