A joint crisis plan negotiated with mental health staff significantly reduces compulsory admission and treatment in people with severe mental illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Henderson C, Flood C, Leese M, et al . Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2004;329:136.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does a joint crisis plan reduce the use of inpatient services, and compulsory admission and treatment in people with severe mental illness? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: Concealed. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: Single blind (outcome assessor blinded). ### ![Graphic][6] Follow up period: 15 months. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: Seven community mental health teams, South London and Kent, UK; recruitment 2000 to 2001. ### ![Graphic][8] Patients: 160 people with psychotic illness, or bipolar affective disorder without psychotic symptoms. Exclusions: not admitted to hospital in the preceding two years; current inpatient, or unable to give informed consent. ### ![Graphic][9] Intervention: Joint crisis plan: contained information on contact details, history of mental and physical illnesses, previous antidepressants and psychotherapies, signs predicting relapse, and instructions for care if a future relapse occurs. The … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1136%252Fbmj.38155.585046.63%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15240438%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bmj&resid=329/7458/136&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F1%2F17.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".