Assertive Community Treatment in the Netherlands: Outcome and Model Fidelity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The implementation of assertive community treatment (ACT) varies widely. To date, the association between model fidelity and effect has not been investigated in Europe. We investigated the association between model fidelity and outcome in the Dutch mental health system. METHOD: In a prospective longitudinal study, ACT model fidelity and patient outcomes were assessed in 20 outpatient treatment teams. Patients with severe mental illness (n = 530) participated in the study. Outcomes were assessed 3 times using the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Assessment Schedule (CANSAS), and the number of hospital days and homeless days during a 2-year follow-up period. Data were analyzed using multilevel statistics. RESULTS: High ACT model fidelity was associated with better outcomes on the HoNOS and less homeless days. Among all of the ACT ingredients, team structure was associated with better outcomes. No associations were found between ACT model fidelity, number of hospital days, and CANSAS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence supports the importance of model fidelity for improving patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".