Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-md8df Total loading time: 0.72 Render date: 2021-11-28T02:22:02.155Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: A systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Shaeda Simmonds*
Affiliation:
Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, London
Jeremy Coid
Affiliation:
Forensic Psychiatry Research Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London
Philip Joseph
Affiliation:
Frank Holloway FRCPsych, Bethlem Royal Hospital, Monks Orchard Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 3DX
Sarah Marriott
Affiliation:
Imperial College School of Medicine, Paterson Centre, London
Petertyrer
Affiliation:
Imperial College School of Medicine, Paterson Centre, London
*
Shaeda Simmonds, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority, 50 Eastborne Terrace, London W2 6LX, UK
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Community mental health teams are now generally recommended for the management of severe mental illness but a comparative evaluation of their effectiveness is lacking.

Aims

To assess the benefits of community mental health team management in severe mental illness.

Method

A systematic review was conducted of community mental health team management compared with other standard approaches.

Results

Community mental health team management is associated with fewer deaths by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (odds ratio=0.32, 95% CI 0.09–1.12), less dissatisfaction with care (odds ratio=0.34, 95% CI 0.2–0.59) and fewer drop-outs (odds ratio=0.61, 95% CI 0.45–0.83). Duration of in-patient psychiatric treatment is shorter with community team management and costs of care are less, but there are no gains in clinical symptomatology or social functioning.

Conclusions

Community mental health team management is superior to standard care in promoting greater acceptance of treatment, and may also reduce hospital admission and avoid deaths by suicide. This model of care is effective and deserves encouragement.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Expanding community care for people with mental illness, despite recent concerns (Reference CoidCoid, 1994), remains formal policy in most countries in the world. The initial development of this was through psychiatric policy initiatives (Reference MacmillanMacMillan, 1963), often buttressed by community nurses. However, the major thrust has been the development of multi-disciplinary community mental health teams (CMHTs), which focus assessment and care away from hospital settings and offer a range of interventions tailored to the patients' specific needs (Reference Thornicroft, Becker and HollowayThornicroft et al, 1999). This model of care, despite having a much lower profile than other models of community treatment, particularly assertive community treatment (ACT; Reference Stein and TestStein & Test, 1980; Reference Marshall, Lockwood and GrayMarshall et al, 1999) is now pre-eminent and is the common form of liaison with primary care (Reference Hafner and KlugHafner & Klug, 1982). Despite this de facto recognition, there have been no systematic views on the effectiveness of this approach, an omission that has been corrected by this review.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of the relevant literature was undertaken using electronic databases (Biological Abstracts January 1982-January 1997, EMBASE 1980-1997, Medline 1966-1998 and PsycLIT 1974-1997), SCISEARCH (Science Citation Index), reference lists, searching and personal contact. Full details of the search strategy are detailed elsewhere (Reference Tyrer, Coid and SimmondsTyrer et al, 2000). All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of patients with severe mental illness (not formally defined in most studies, but defined here as “ a psychiatric illness of sufficient severity to require intensive input and regular review”) were included in the search. Using this definition it was assumed that at least half of the patients included would have a psychotic illness. For the purpose of the review, CMHT management was defined as generic care (i.e. care not supplemented by ACT, intensive case management or any other specific model) from a community-based multi-disciplinary team that provides a full range of interventions to adults aged 18-65 years with severe mental illness from a defined catchment area (Reference Thornicroft, Becker and HollowayThornicroft et al, 1999). Standard care was defined as the usual care in the area concerned, provided that this care was not furnished by another community team. In most circumstances this was found to be hospital-based out-patient care.

Procedure

Two of the authors (S.S. and P.T.), both independently and in parallel, studied the abstracts, titles and descriptor terms of all downloaded material from the electronic searches; illegible reports were discarded and the selected original articles were retained. To check the completeness of the electronic search, references cited in all included papers were examined and personal contacts were written to in order to identify any other studies that might be appropriate. The same authors separately evaluated the acquired studies and matched them with the inclusion criteria defined above. Agreement was evaluated by the κ statistic and if overall agreement was less than 0.75 (the level regarded as excellent by Reference Cicchetti and SparrowCicchetti & Sparrow, 1981) then the strategy of the selection was reviewed. Where disagreement occurred, a third reviewer (S.M.) was asked to resolve the dispute. When resolution was not possible, the study was added to those awaiting assessment and the authors were contacted for further data.

Outcome measures and analysis

The outcomes measured included:

  1. (a) Death.

  2. (b) Acceptability of management (measured by loss to follow-up, i.e. leaving the study early).

  3. (c) General (global) improvement.

  4. (d) Number of episodes of psychiatric hospitalisation and their duration.

  5. (e) Psychopathology and social function.

  6. (f) Costs.

Dichotomous and continuous data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis because evaluation of CMHT management is suitable for a pragmatic approach. Because a wide range of instruments is available to measure outcomes in community care, it was decided to include data from instruments that have been published in a peer review journal in which the validity and reliability had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of referees. Because many of the outcomes of community care are not normally distributed, the following standards were applied to all data before they could be combined in meta-analysis: standard deviations and means of reportage in the paper were obtainable from the authors; and standard deviations when multiplied by 2 were less than the mean (otherwise the mean was unlikely to be an appropriate measure of the centre of distribution) (Reference Altman and BlandAltman & Bland, 1996; Reference Parmar, Stewart and AltmanParmar et al, 1996).

All normally distributed data were entered into the RevMan software (the Cochrane Collaboration Statistical Program), which allowed data to be combined for meta-analysis. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each study as well as for combined data.

RESULTS

A total of 1200 citations were found using the search strategy, of which 65 were judged to be relevant and full details of the publications were obtained. Of these, five satisfied the inclusion criteria: one from Australia (Reference Hoult, Reynolds and Charbonneau-PowisHoult et al, 1981), one from Canada (Reference Fenton, Tessier and StrueningFenton et al, 1979) and three from London, UK (Reference Merson, Tyrer and OnyettMerson et al, 1992; Burns et al, Reference Burns, Beadsmoore and Bhat1993a ,Reference Burns, Raftery and Beadsmoore b ; Reference Tyrer, Evans and GandhiTyrer et al, 1998) (Table 1). Of the remaining 60, 13 were rejected because they were trials based on specific forms of care such as ACT, 21 because they were not randomised trials, 25 because the interventions did not satisfy the requirements for CMHT treatment and one because the participant did not satisfy all the criteria for the review. The five studies included were reported in 15 journal articles, all published in peer review journals.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

Study Methods Participants Intervention
Australia, 1981 Allocation: sealed, randomly mixed envelopes Diagnosis: schizophrenia (58), paranoid psychosis (12), mania (10), neurosis (7), other (28) 1. Project team: multi-disciplinary ‘project’ team, drug treatment, counselling, training in social and basic living skills, family intervention, support and education, 24-h cover (n=60)
(CMHT=60; standard=60) Follow-up: 12 months Age:<40 years=78 2. Standard hospital care and follow-up (n=60)
Gender: 55 male.
History: 90 previous psychiatric contact
Setting: inner city
Canada, 1979 Allocation: randomisation method not described Diagnosis: schizophrenia, 42%; neurotic, 7.8%; other 30.3% 1. Home care: multi-disciplinary team, drug and psychotherapy within family, clinical decisions by team consensus, referral to community agencies, 24-h cover (n=78)
(CMHT=78; standard=84) Blinding: unclear, raters ‘independent of teams’ Age: 85% 15-54 years 2. Standard hospital treatment: follow-up after discharge (n=84)
Follow-up: 2 years Gender: 65 male
History: 60% previous psychiatric contact
Setting: inner city
London, 1992 Allocation: randomised, sealed envelopes, stratified by previous contacts with psychiatric services Diagnosis: schizophrenia (38), mood disorders (32), mood disorders (32), neurotic (25), other (5) 1. Early intervention service: multi-disciplinary team, open referral, swift response, case manager assigned, no 24-h cover (n=48)
(CMHT=48; standard=52) Duration: 3 months Age: median 32 years 2. Standard hospital care, usually out-patient department (n=52)
Gender: 40 male
History: 51% previous psychiatric contact
Setting: inner city
London, 1993 Allocation: randomised, using a random number sequence, before applying inclusion criteria Diagnosis: psychotic 1. Community treatment teams: multi-disciplinary community teams, home-based assessment within 2 weeks of referral, joint visits (n=94 ‘entering’ study)
(CMHT=150; standard=182) Follow-up: 12 months Age: mean=40 years 2. Standard hospital treatment: usually out-patient department with occasional home visits (n=78 ‘entering’ study)
Costs of care Gender: 75 male
History: 79 previous psychiatric history
Setting: inner city
London, 1998 Allocation: sealed, randomly mixed envelopes Diagnosis: schizophrenia (86), bipolar affective disorder (20), depressive disorder (24), other (25) 1. Community team: multi-disciplinary community-based team, keyworker allocated, care plans, treatment at home/other appropriate setting (n=82)
(CMHT=82; standard=73) Follow-up: 12 months Age: 16-65 years 2. Standard hospital treatment: care plans and reviews organised from hospital base (n=55)
History:>1 admission in the past 3 years
Setting: urban

Deaths from all causes

Four out of the five studies had fewer deaths in the standard care group. Although the small numbers in individual studies seldom provoked comment, collectively they amounted to a difference that was significant (Fig. 1): 1.7% of people treated by CMHTs died during the course of the studies, compared with 3.8% of the control group. This difference was even greater when deaths by suicide or suspicious circumstances were compared (OR=0.32; CI 0.09-1.12). Deaths due to physical causes also were less frequent in the CMHT group, but not to a marked extent (OR=0.63; CI 0.22-1.82).

Fig. 1 Comparison of community mental health team (CMHT) management and standard care with respect to death as an outcome. When the boundaries of the diamond-shaped lozenge do not cross the vertical line, there are significant differences between the two models of care.

Leaving the study early

All of the five studies provided data. Results relating to the 854 people showed that a significantly smaller proportion (33%) dropped out of CMHT management early compared with 45% in those receiving standard care (OR=0.61, CI 0.45-0.83) (Fig. 2). Individuals dying of natural causes were excluded from this outcome measure.

Fig. 2 Comparison of those leaving the study early (loss to follow-up) with community mental health team (CHMT) management and standard care.

Hospitalisation

The mean duration of psychiatric hospital admissions showed that less time was spent in hospital following CMHT management (Table 2) but the data were not homogeneous (χ2=21.3, d.f.=3, P < 0.001). This is mainly because one study (Reference Hoult and ReynoldsHoult & Reynolds, 1984) randomised patients at the point of admission to hospital and, as there were no special provisions to prevent admissions in the standard care group, 56 of the 58 patients concerned were admitted. However, the duration of hospital treatment was also significantly less in patients from CMHT management in other settings and, despite the skewed data, it is reasonable to conclude that such management reduces hospital stay.

Table 2 Comparison of community mental health and standard teams in use of psychiatric beds

Duration of hospital care (mean bed days)
Study Community mental health team Standard
Australia, 1981 8.4 (s.d. not available) 53.5 (s.d. not available)
Canada, 1979 14.5 (s.d.=35.7) 41.7 (s.d.=50.3)
London, 19921 1.2 (s.d.=3.6) 9.3 (s.d.=20.1)
London, 1993 No data available No data available
London, 1998 27.9 (s.d.=53.9) 28.7 (s.d.=49.3)

Clinical psychopathology and social functioning

The results of the five studies are shown in Table 3. Because studies used different rating scales and these showed larger than acceptable standard deviations, it was not possible to combine these in a meta-analysis. However, the data taken separately suggest no convincing differences in favour of either form of management for clinical symptoms or social functioning.

Table 3 Mean psychiatric symptoms and social function at end of studies (ranging from 3 to 12 months)

Study Mean (mn) or median (md) symptom severity at end of study Rating instrument1 Reference
CMHT Standard
Psychiatric symptoms scales
Australia, 1981 9.8 (mn) 15.4 (mn) Present State Examination (Reference Wing, Cooper and SartoriusWing et al, 1974) Reference Hoult and ReynoldsHoult & Reynolds, 1984
London, 1992 23 (mn) (s.d.=11) 25 (mn) (s.d.=14) Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (Reference Åsberg, Montgomery and PerrisÅsberg et al, 1978) Reference Merson, Tyrer and OnyettMerson et al, 1992
London, 1993 19 (md) 18 (md) Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (Reference Overall and GorhamOverall & Gorham, 1962) Reference Burns, Beadsmoore and BhatBurns et al, 1993a
London, 1998 12.5 (md) 15.0 (md) Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale (Reference Åsberg, Montgomery and PerrisÅsberg et al, 1978) Reference Tyrer, Evans and GandhiTyrer et al, 1998
Social functioning scales
Australia, 1981 50 (mn) 46 (mn) Health Sickness Rating Scale (Reference LuborskyLuborsky, 1962) Reference Hoult and ReynoldsHoult & Reynolds, 1984
Canada, 1979 2.1 2.9 Psychiatric Evaluation Form (Reference Endicott and SpitzerEndicott & Spitzer, 1972) Reference Fenton, Tessier and StrueningFenton et al, 1979
London, 1992 9.7 (mn) (s.d.=5) 9.0 (s.d.=4) Social Functioning Questionnaire (Reference TyrerTyrer, 1990) Reference Merson, Tyrer and OnyettMerson et al, 1992
London, 1993 3 (md) 5 (md) Social Functioning Schedule (Reference Remington and TyrerRemington & Tyrer, 1979) Reference Burns, Beadsmoore and BhatBurns et al, 1993a
London, 1998 9 (mn) (s.d.=7) 10 (mn) (s.d.=6) Social Functioning Questionnaire (Reference TyrerTyrer, 1990) Reference Tyrer, Evans and GandhiTyrer et al, 1998

Costs

In all five studies the total cost of care was less for those treated with CHMT management (Table 4). Because of the gross skewing of data it was not possible to use meta-analysis to combine the data, but all studies reported lower costs with CMHT management, with differences of between 12 and 53% across the five studies. Because these differences are substantial, it is fair to conclude that the published studies showed clear evidence of CMHT management being cheaper than standard care, even allowing for the limitations of the data across a span of 17 years.

Table 4 Mean costs of care over duration of studies ranging from 3 to 12 months (markedly skewed data cannot be combined by meta-analysis)

Study Mean cost (0-12 months)1 Percentage mean saving with CMHT Reference
CMHT Standard
Australia, 1981 £ 2225 £ 2845 22 Reference Hoult and ReynoldsHoult & Reynolds, 1984
Canada, 1979 £ 1468 £ 3068 52 Reference Fenton, Tessier and StrueningFenton et al, 1979
London, 1992 £ 1167 £ 2500 53 Reference Merson, Tyrer and CarlenMerson et al, 1996
London, 1993 £ 1429 £ 1696 16 Reference Burns, Raftery and BeadsmooreBurns et al, 1993b
London, 1998 £ 16 765 £ 19 125 12 Reference Tyrer, Evans and GandhiTyrer et al, 1998

DISCUSSION

Benefits of CMHT management

The results of this review show that CMHT management is effective in comparison with standard care with respect to acceptance of treatment, reduction of hospital admissions, maintaining care, reducing death by suicide and suspicious circumstances and in reducing costs. Although changes in psychopathology showed no difference between CMHT management and standard care, there are no outcomes for which standard care is superior to care delivery from a CMHT.

Before discussing the implications of these positive conclusions, it needs to be acknowledged that the studies do not necessarily reflect the exercise of both of these models of care in practice. The Australian study had a specific research focus, and in all studies there was a level of enthusiasm for community care in the mental health teams that could well be greater than the average for such services. However, there is no evidence that enthusiasm alone has any significant impact on the care of patients with severe mental illness, and the inclusion of patients in any research study tends to be associated with a Hawthorne effect that applies across all treatment arms. In recent years the practices employed by the CMHTs in this study have been more widely spread and are generally becoming the norm.

Effects on psychiatric bed use

The evidence that duration of psychiatric care is reduced with CMHT management is strong but not overwhelming. The figures lie between those studies, mainly published in the USA, that suggest that the ACT model has a major impact on reducing admissions (Reference Marshall, Lockwood and GrayMarshall et al, 1999) and formal case management (allocation to a formal process of regular assessment and review), which creates the opposite effect with greater hospital admissions (Reference Tyrer, Morgan and Van HornTyrer et al, 1995; Reference Marshall, Gray and LockwoodMarshall et al, 1998). The results also need to be tempered with some caution. The findings apply only when sufficient beds are available for admission. When there is a significant shortage of beds, as in the later study (Reference Tyrer, Evans and GandhiTyrer et al, 1998), admissions were still reduced but the duration of hospital admissions may become longer because of the disruption created by transfer of patients to distant hospitals. The lower rate of drop-out from care with CHMT management supports the findings of case management (Reference Marshall, Gray and LockwoodMarshall et al, 1998) and assertive approaches (Reference Marshall, Lockwood and GrayMarshall et al, 1999) and is perhaps partly expected, because one of the main functions of such teams is to maintain contact with patients and to see them in settings that are most appropriate for their care, including home treatment.

Cost-effectiveness and reduced deaths

The lower use of in-patient services is probably the main reason for the reduced cost of CMHT treatment (Table 4). Indeed, the savings here are substantial because a very large amount of money is saved by preventing relatively few admissions and it is perhaps this reason that has led to much of the savings created by the closure of mental hospitals not being transferred to acute services, where they appear to be most needed (Reference Lelliott, Sims and WingLelliott et al, 1993). The finding that CMHT management may reduce suicide and deaths under suspicious circumstances is of particular interest in view of the perceived failings of community care in some parts of the world, in particular the UK, where its failure has been stated clearly by government (Department of Health, 1998). Largely because of incorrect and tendentious reporting by the media, the policy of ‘care in the community’ for people with severe mental illness has become associated in the public mind with professional neglect and increased rates of homicide and suicide. It appears from our data that good CMHTs have the opposite effect and that if we are able to provide adequate resources then these serious adverse consequences arise rather less often than in other settings.

Clinical Implications and Limitations

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

  • Community mental health team (CMHT) management is a cost-effective method of delivering care for people with severe mental illness because, compared with non-team care, it delivers similar clinical outcomes at reduced cost.

  • Deaths from suicide and suspicious circumstances are reduced by CMHT management compared with standard hospital-oriented care and this should be taken into account when attribution of blame is made for such tragic events in community settings.

  • Loss to care through drop-out is less with CMHT management then with standard care, probably because it is more acceptable to patients, and is therefore likely to grow further in importance.

LIMITATIONS

  • The numbers of deaths in the studies was small and further studies are needed to determine whether this finding is robust.

  • The review did not address the therapeutic activity of the CMHTs and endorsement of this approach is clearly dependent on sufficient skills being available within the teams to provide optimal interventions.

  • Two of the reviewed studies were aimed specifically at avoiding hospital admission and so the findings of reduced bed use need to be tempered with caution.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Information presented here has been available since 1997 in the Cochrane Library, in a review entitled ‘Community mental health teams (CMHTs) for people with severe mental illnesses and disordered personality’. We thank colleagues in the Cochrane Library, particularly Clive Adams and Nancy Owens, for their help in this review. A grant was received from the North Thames R&D Responsive Funding Group.

Footnotes

See invited commentary, pp. 503–505, this issue.

Declaration of interest

None.

References

Altman, D. G. & Bland, J. M. (1996) Detecting skewness from summary information. British Medical Journal, 313, 1200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Åsberg, M. Montgomery, S. A. Perris, C. et al (1978) A comprehensive psychopathological rating scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Supplement, 271, 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, T. Beadsmoore, A. Bhat, A. V. et al (1993a) A controlled trial of home-based acute psychiatric services. I. Clinical and social outcome. British Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 4954.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, T. Raftery, J. Beadsmoore, A. et al (1993b) A controlled trial of home-based acute psychiatric services. II. Treatment patterns and costs. British Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 5561.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. V. & Sparrow, S. S. (1981) Developing criteria for the rating of specific items in a given inventory. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127137.Google Scholar
Coid, J. (1994) Failure in community care: psychiatry's dilemma. British Medical Journal, 308, 805806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Department of Health (1998) Our Healthier Nation: A Contract for Health (Cm. 3852). London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Endicott, J. & Spitzer, R. L. (1972) What! Another rating scale! The Psychiatric Evaluation Form. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 154, 88104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenton, F. R. Tessier, L. & Struening, E. L. (1979) A comparative trial of home and hospital psychiatric care: one-year follow-up. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 10731079.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hafner, H. & Klug, J. (1982) The impact of an expanding community mental health service on patterns of bed usuage: evaluation of a four-year period of implementation. Psychological Medicine, 12, 177190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoult, J. Reynolds, I. Charbonneau-Powis, M. et al (1981) A controlled study of psychiatric hospital versus community treatment – the effect on relatives. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 323328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoult, J. & Reynolds, I. (1984) Schizophrenia: a comparative trial of community-oriented and hospital-oriented psychiatric care. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 69, 359372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelliott, P. Sims, A. & Wing, J. (1993) Who pays for community care? The same old question. British Medical Journal, 307, 991994.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luborsky, L. (1962) Clinicians' judgement of mental health. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 407417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macmillan, D. (1963) Recent developments in community mental health. Lancet, i, 567571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M. Gray, A. Lockwood, A. et al (1998) Case management for severe mental disorders. Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. Lockwood, A. Gray, A. et al (1999) Assertive community treatment. Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Merson, S. Tyrer, P. Onyett, S. et al (1992) Early intervention in psychiatric emergencies: a controlled clinical trial. Lancet, 339, 13111314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merson, S. Tyrer, P. Carlen, D. et al (1996) The cost of treatment of psychiatric emergencies: a comparison of hospital and community services. Psychological Medicine, 26, 727734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muijen, M. Marks, I. M. Connolly, J. et al (1992) Home based care and standard hospital care for patients with severe mental illness: a randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 304, 749754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overall, J. E. & Gorham, D. R. (1962) The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Psychological Reports, 10, 799812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmar, M. K. Stewart, L. A. & Altman, D. G. (1996) Meta-analyses of randomised trials: when the whole is more than just the sum of the parts. British Journal of Cancer, 74, 496501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remington, M. & Tyrer, P. (1979) The Social Functioning Schedule – a brief semi-structured interview. Social Psychiatry, 14, 151157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, L. I. & Test, M. A. (1980) Alternative to mental hospital treatment. I. Conceptual model, treatment program, and clinical evaluation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 392397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornicroft, G. Becker, T. Holloway, F. et al (1999) Community mental health teams: evidence or belief? British Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 508513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P. (1990) Personality disorder and social functioning. In Measuring Human Problems: A Practical Guide (eds D. F. Peck & C. M. Shapiro), pp. 119142. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tyrer, P. Morgan, J. Van Horn, E. et al (1995) A randomised controlled study of close monitoring of vulnerable psychiatric patients. Lancet, 345, 756759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P. Evans, K. Gandhi, N. et al (1998) Randomised controlled trial of two models of care for discharged psychiatric patients. British Medical Journal, 316, 106109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrer, P. Coid, J. Simmonds, S. et al (2000) Community mental health team management for those with severe mental illness and disordered personality. Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
Wing, J. Cooper, J. & Sartorius, N. (1974) The Present State Examination (9th revision). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

Figure 1

Fig. 1 Comparison of community mental health team (CMHT) management and standard care with respect to death as an outcome. When the boundaries of the diamond-shaped lozenge do not cross the vertical line, there are significant differences between the two models of care.

Figure 2

Fig. 2 Comparison of those leaving the study early (loss to follow-up) with community mental health team (CHMT) management and standard care.

Figure 3

Table 2 Comparison of community mental health and standard teams in use of psychiatric beds

Figure 4

Table 3 Mean psychiatric symptoms and social function at end of studies (ranging from 3 to 12 months)

Figure 5

Table 4 Mean costs of care over duration of studies ranging from 3 to 12 months (markedly skewed data cannot be combined by meta-analysis)

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access
73
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: A systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: A systematic review
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: A systematic review
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *