↓ Skip to main content

Intensive home treatment for patients in acute psychiatric crisis situations: a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
4 tweeters
3 Facebook pages


10 Dimensions

Readers on

100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Intensive home treatment for patients in acute psychiatric crisis situations: a multicentre randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1632-z
Pubmed ID

Jurgen Cornelis, Ansam Barakat, Jack Dekker, Tessy Schut, Sandra Berk, Hans Nusselder, Nikander Ruhl, Jeroen Zoeteman, Rien Van, Aartjan Beekman, Matthijs Blankers


Hospitalization is a common method to intensify care for patients experiencing a psychiatric crisis. A short-term, specialised, out-patient crisis intervention by a Crisis Resolution Team (CRT) in the Netherlands, called Intensive Home Treatment (IHT), is a viable intervention which may help reduce hospital admission days. However, research on the (cost-)effectiveness of alternatives to hospitalisation such as IHT are scarce. In the study presented in this protocol, IHT will be compared to care-as-usual (CAU) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). CAU comprises low-intensity outpatient care and hospitalisation if necessary. In this RCT it is hypothesized that IHT will reduce inpatient days by 33% compared to CAU while safety and clinical outcomes will be non-inferior. Secondary hypotheses are that treatment satisfaction of patients and their relatives are expected to be higher in the IHT condition compared to CAU. A 2-centre, 2-arm Zelen double consent RCT will be employed. Participants will be recruited in the Amsterdam area, the Netherlands. Clinical assessments will be carried out at baseline and at 6, 26 and 52 weeks post treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure is the number of admission days. Secondary outcomes include psychological well-being, safety and patients' and their relatives' treatment satisfaction. Alongside this RCT an economic evaluation will be carried out to assess the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of IHT compared to CAU. RCTs on the effectiveness of crisis treatment in psychiatry are scarce and including patients in studies performed in acute psychiatric crisis care is a challenge due to the ethical and practical hurdles. The Zelen design may offer a feasible opportunity to carry out such an RCT. If our study finds that IHT is a safe and cost-effective alternative for CAU it may help support a further decrease of in-patient bed days and may foster the widespread implementation of IHT by mental health care organisations internationally. The trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register as # NTR-6151 . Registered 23 November 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 25%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Other 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 22 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 27%
Psychology 15 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 26 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2018.
All research outputs
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
of 3,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 274,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,886 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them