Cited by 34Psychiatric care and mental health servicesHealth Policy Implementation ScienceMental Health and Patient Involvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Forty-five years later: the challenge of optimizing assertive community treatment

Thorning, Helle, Dixon, Lisa·2020·Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Assertive Community Treatment is an established evidenced based practice that provides intensive community treatment for individuals with severe mental illness with recurrent hospitalizations and/or homelessness. Emerging evidence indicates limitations in its implementation in terms of to the original ACT model and its current relevance. RECENT FINDINGS: Findings from recent studies (2018-2020) reveals challenges with implementation centered around basic implementation activities, such as changes in the psychosocial context of individuals with SMI, clinicians' abilities to demonstrate competencies with new practices, and ongoing evolution of mental health systems of care worldwide. Intermediary and purveyor organizations (IPO) can provide the infrastructure to support the spread of EBPs while addressing challenges and opportunities. Thus, implementation of ACT can be accomplished when employing a rigorous framework and infrastructure that can synthesize and translate science relevant for practice. SUMMARY: The relevance of ACT depends on its implementation that is responsive to change. An implementation science-informed approach is key to providing ACT to individuals in the critical space between the hospital and community. With this approach, we can optimize ACT as a service delivery vehicle by careful analysis of how best to furnish and evaluate the latest, most effective and efficient treatments, rehabilitation and support services.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/yco.0000000000000615

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Stuen, 2018, Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders, BMC Health Serv Res, 18, 290, 10.1186/s12913-018-3097-7 · DOI
  2. Thorning, 2016, Adoption of a Blended Training Curriculum for ACT in New York State, Psychiatric Services, 10.1176/appi.ps.201600143 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Thorning, H., & Dixon, L.
Affiliations
New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Thorning, Helle
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychiatry
Published
2020-07
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
397-406
ISSN
  • 0951-7367 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-6578
OpenAlex
W3030872904
Cited by
34
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
assertive community treatment, severe mental illness, implementation science, evidence-based practice dissemination, mental health service delivery, homelessness, hospitalization, clinician competence
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Community Mental Health Services, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Evidence-Based Practice

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