Impact of Mobile Crisis Services on Emergency Department Use Among Youths With Behavioral Health Service Needs
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: Youths are using emergency departments (EDs) for behavioral health services in record numbers, even though EDs are suboptimal settings for service delivery. In this article, the authors evaluated a mobile crisis service intervention implemented in Connecticut with the aim of examining whether the intervention was associated with reduced behavioral health ED use among those in need of services. METHODS: The authors examined two cohorts of youths: 2,532 youths who used mobile crisis services and a comparison sample of 3,961 youths who used behavioral health ED services (but not mobile crisis services) during the same fiscal year. Propensity scores were created to balance the two groups, and outcome analyses were used to examine subsequent ED use (any behavioral health ED admissions and number of behavioral health ED admissions) in an 18-month follow-up period. RESULTS: A pooled odds ratio of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.66-0.84) indicated that youths who received mobile crisis services had a significant reduction in odds of a subsequent behavioral health ED visit compared with youths in the comparison sample. The comparable result for the continuous outcome of number of behavioral health ED visits yielded an incidence risk ratio of 0.78 (95% CI=0.71-0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Using comparison groups, the authors provided evidence suggesting that community-based mobile crisis services, such as Mobile Crisis, reduce ED use among youths with behavioral health service needs. Replication in other years and locations is needed. Nevertheless, these results are quite promising in light of current trends in ED use.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The number of participants among all studies ranges from 2 to 2532.
“The number of participants among all studies ranges from 2 [62] to 2532 [63].”
From Understanding Mobile Health and Youth Mental Health: Scoping Review (2023) · cites this paper as [63]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 27 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Fendrich, M., Ives, M., Kurz, B., Becker, J., Vanderploeg, J., Bory, C., Lin, H.-J., & Plant, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Venue
- Psychiatric Services
- Published
- 2019-10-01
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 881-887
- ISSN
- 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-2730
- 1557-9700
- OpenAlex
- W2951406818
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 27
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Keywords
- emergency department utilization, youth mental health, behavioral health services, emergency department admission
- MeSH terms
- Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Mental Disorders, Child, Community Mental Health Services, Connecticut, Crisis Intervention, Emergency Service, Hospital, Emergency Services, Psychiatric, Female, Humans, Male, Mobile Health Units, Psychiatric Department, Hospital, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Suicide, Logistic Models, Treatment Outcome, Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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