Cited by 55Psychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health and Patient InvolvementSchizophrenia research and treatment

Successful engagement: a mixed methods study of the approaches of assertive community treatment and community mental health teams in the REACT trial

Killaspy, Helen, Johnson, Sonia, Pierce, Barbara, Bebbington, Paul, Pilling, Stephen, Nolan, Fiona, King, Michael·2009·Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00127-008-0472-4

Cites

22 of 22 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.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Killaspy, H., Johnson, S., Pierce, B., Bebbington, P., Pilling, S., Nolan, F., & King, M.
Affiliations
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • St Pancras Hospital (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Killaspy, Helen
Venue
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Published
2008-11-27
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
532-540
ISSN
  • 0933-7954 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-9285
OpenAlex
W2095081860
Cited by
55
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
assertive community treatment, community mental health teams, customer engagement, REACT trial, team approach, staff satisfaction, model fidelity, mental health service delivery
MeSH terms
Assertiveness, Attitude of Health Personnel, Behavior Therapy, Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Humans, London, Patient Care Team, Professional-Patient Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Qualitative Research

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