↓ Skip to main content

The Post-Discharge Network Coordination Programme: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of an Intervention Aimed at Reducing Rehospitalizations and Improving Mental Health

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Post-Discharge Network Coordination Programme: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of an Intervention Aimed at Reducing Rehospitalizations and Improving Mental Health
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2016.00027
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael P. Hengartner, Silvia Passalacqua, Gisela Heim, Andreas Andreae, Wulf Rössler, Agnes von Wyl

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of a post-discharge intervention for psychiatric inpatients aimed at preventing hospital readmissions and at improving patients' mental health and psychosocial functioning. Randomized controlled trial using parallel group block randomization including 151 patients with ≤3 hospitalizations within the last 3 years, a GAF score ≤60, and aged 18-64 years, assessed at two psychiatric hospitals from the canton of Zurich, Switzerland, between September 2011 and February 2014. Primary outcomes were rate and duration of rehospitalization; secondary outcomes were mental health and functioning. Outcome measures were assessed before discharge from the index hospitalization (t 0), 3 months after discharge when the intervention terminated (t 1), and 12 months after discharge (t 2). Participants received either a brief case management post-discharge intervention or treatment as usual. In the short-term (i.e., t 0-t 1), no significant effect emerged in any outcome. In the long term (i.e., t 0-t 2), the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to the rate and duration of rehospitalization. Also, the intervention did not reduce psychiatric symptoms, did not improve social support, and did not improve quality of life. However, it did slightly increase assessor-rated general (d = 0.30) and social functioning (d = 0.42), although self-reports revealed a deteriorative effect on symptom remission (d = -0.44). This psychosocial post-discharge intervention showed no efficacy in the primary outcome of rehospitalization. With respect to secondary outcomes, in the long term it might lead to slightly increased social functioning but revealed no significant effect on psychopathology, social support, and quality of life. By contrast, with respect to self-reported symptom remission, it was revealed to have a negative effect. In this high-resource catchment area with comprehensive community psychiatric and social services, the intervention thus cannot be recommended for implementation in routine care.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,329,309
of 23,835,032 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#3,317
of 10,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,662
of 300,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#21
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,835,032 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,892 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.