Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Community mental health teams (CMHTs) for people with severe mental illnesses and disordered personality

This is not the most recent version

Collapse all Expand all

Abstract

Background

Closure of asylums and institutions for the mentally ill, coupled with government policies focusing on reducing the number of hospital beds for people with severe mental illness in favour of providing care in a variety of non‐hospital settings underpins the rationale behind care in the community. A major thrust towards community care has been the development of community mental health teams (CMHT).

Objectives

To evaluate the effects of community mental health team (CMHT) treatment for anyone with serious mental illness.

Search methods

Electronic searches of Biological Abstracts (1982‐1997), the Cochrane Library (1998, Issue 2), EMBASE (1980‐1997), MEDLINE (1966‐1997), PsycLIT (1974‐1997) and SCISEARCH (1997) were undertaken. The Journal of Personality Disorders was hand searched, and contact was made with colleagues at ENMESH, ISSPD and in forensic psychiatry.

Selection criteria

All randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials of CMHT management versus non‐team standard care.

Data collection and analysis

The selection of trials, assessment of quality and data extraction was undertaken independently and in parallel by two reviewers. Where possible the data were entered into RevMan and an intention‐to‐treat analysis undertaken. Tests of heterogeneity were undertaken.

Main results

CMHT management may be associated with fewer deaths by suicide and in suspicious circumstances (OR 0.32 CI 0.09‐1.12). It causes less people to be dissatisfied with their care (OR 0.34 CI 0.2‐0.59) and to leave the studies early (OR 0.61 CI 0.45‐0.83). No clear difference was found in admission rates, overall clinical outcomes and duration of in‐patient hospital treatment, although this was partly a consequence of poorly presented data.

Authors' conclusions

Community mental health team management is not inferior to non‐team standard care in any important respects and is superior in promoting greater acceptance of treatment. It may also be superior in reducing hospital admission and avoiding death by suicide.

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Plain language summary

Synopsis pending.