CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Psychiatric care and mental health servicesHealthcare Operations and Scheduling OptimizationMental Health Treatment and Access

A prospective outcome study of patients missing regular psychiatric outpatient appointments

Pang, A. H. T., Lum, F. C. K., Ungvari, G. S., Wong, C. K., Leung, Y. S.·1996·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
DOI 10.1007/bf00787924
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper describes a prospective follow-up study of defaulters of regular psychiatric outpatient appointments in Hong Kong. To establish outcome, 258 patients were traced 6 months after their non-attendance at a follow-up clinic. Results showed that 50% returned while the rest dropped out of treatment. The clinical and demographic variables, including employment, marriage, being seen by faculty rather than resident staff, a past history of default and shorter length of contact at the clinic studied (within a year), were all significant in predicting drop-out. There was a trend for those who reattended to have received a telephone reminder, to be a student and to be single. Out of the 129 drop-out patients, 84 were traced, 23 were admitted to hospital and 5 died. There were no deaths and only 5 patients required hospitalisation among the attenders. We concluded that active reengagement of psychiatric outpatient defaulters is required.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00787924

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estimated prevalence of dropout varies from 15 to 60% and is even higher among young people, particularly in the age group of 15-24 years.

    “Estimated prevalence varies from 15 to 60 % [3–6] and is even higher among young people [4, 7–9], particularly in the age group of 15–24 years [4].”

    From Determinants of dropout in a community-based mental health crisis centre (2016) · cites this paper as [6]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pang, A. H. T., Lum, F. C. K., Ungvari, G. S., Wong, C. K., & Leung, Y. S.
Affiliations
  • Prince of Wales Hospital (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
ORCID
Ungvari, G. S.
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1996-09
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
299-302
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
DOI
10.1007/bf00787924
OpenAlex
W90073803
Cited by
36
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Healthcare Operations and Scheduling Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
missed appointments, outpatient psychiatric care, treatment discontinuation, re-attendance, predictors of dropout, telephone reminders, re-engagement, follow-up outcomes, hospitalization, mortality
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Appointments and Schedules, Mental Disorders, Female, Hong Kong, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Dropouts, Prospective Studies, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review