Burns Tom
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2008 Apr-Jun;17(2):99-105. doi: 10.1017/s1121189x00002761.
There has been a long-running controversy about the relative benefits of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) compared to Case Management (CM). Several health care systems have initiated major service overhauls on the basis of published evidence. Yet this evidence has been ambiguous and supports differing interpretations. Research is examined which explores the differences in outcomes reported. It uses a range of approaches, most prominently meta-regression, to test a small range of hypotheses to explain the heterogeneity in outcomes. The main determinant of differences between ACT and CM studies is the local bed management procedures and occupancy practice. Those organizational aspects of ACT which are generally shared by CM teams are associated with reduced hospital care but the stringent staffing proposed for ACT does not affect it. ACT is a specialized form of CM, not a categorically different approach. The benefits of introducing it will depend on the nature of current local practice. Important lessons about the need to focus on treatments rather than structures seem not to have been learnt. Psychiatry's recent excessive focus on service structures may have had unintended consequences for our professional identity.
与个案管理(CM)相比,积极社区治疗(ACT)的相对益处一直存在长期争议。一些医疗保健系统已根据已发表的证据启动了重大的服务改革。然而,这些证据并不明确,支持不同的解释。本文考察了探究所报告结果差异的研究。它采用了一系列方法,最主要的是元回归,来检验一小部分假设,以解释结果的异质性。ACT和CM研究之间差异的主要决定因素是当地的床位管理程序和占用情况。CM团队通常共有的ACT的那些组织方面与减少医院护理有关,但为ACT提议的严格人员配置对此没有影响。ACT是CM的一种特殊形式,而不是一种完全不同的方法。引入它的益处将取决于当前当地实践的性质。关于需要关注治疗而非结构的重要教训似乎尚未被吸取。精神病学最近对服务结构的过度关注可能对我们的职业身份产生了意想不到的后果。