Cited by 76Psychiatric care and mental health servicesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologySchizophrenia research and treatment

Cost-effectiveness of nidotherapy for comorbid personality disorder and severe mental illness: randomized controlled trial

Ranger, Maja, Tyrer, Peter, Miloseska, Katerina, Fourie, Hannalie, Khaleel, Ibrahim, North, Bernard, Barrett, Barbara·2009·Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale

Abstract

Summary: Aims – Nidotherapy is the systematic modification of the environment to create a better fit for people. This is the first randomized controlled trial of its efficacy in an assertive community team. Methods – Patients in an assertive outreach team with continued management problems together with comorbid personality disturbance and severe mental illness were randomized to nidotherapy enhanced assertive treatment (up to 12 sessions) or to continued assertive outreach care. Use of psychiatric beds over one years (primary outcome) and change from base-line in other health service resources, psychiatric symptoms, social functioning and engagement with services were measured at 6 and 12 months (secondary outcomes). Results – 52 patients were recruited over 13 months, with 49 and 37 assessed at 6 and 12 months. Patients referred to nidotherapy had a 63% reduction in hospital bed use after one year compared with control assertive care (P=0.13) and showed non-significant improvement in psychiatric symptoms, social functioning and engagement than the control group. The mean cost savings for each patient allocated to nidotherapy was £4,112 per year, mainly as a consequence of reduced psychiatric bed use. Conclusion – Nidotherapy may be a cost-effective option in the management of comorbid serious mental illness and personality disorder, but larger confirmatory trials are necessary.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1121189x00001019

Cites

30 of 30 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ranger, M., Tyrer, P., Miloseska, K., Fourie, H., Khaleel, I., North, B., & Barrett, B.
Affiliations
  • Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Tyrer, Peter
Venue
Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale
Published
2009-06
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
128-136
ISSN
  • 1121-189X (ISSN-L)
  • 2038-1816
OpenAlex
W2399623812
Cited by
76
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
personality disorders, severe mental illness, comorbidities, assertive community treatment, cost-effectiveness, social functioning, service engagement, health care utilization
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Disorders, Severity of Illness Index, Socioenvironmental Therapy

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