Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Assessing the evidence on case management.

S J Ziguras1, G W Stuart, A C Jackson

  • 1Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. sziguras @bsl.org.au

The British Journal of Psychiatry : the Journal of Mental Science
|July 2, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Negative and positive mental health characteristics of affected family members: Findings from a cross-sectional Australian general population gambling study.

Addictive behaviors·2024
Same author

Electricity: A Paper Read before the Union Medical Society of Northern Indiana.

The North-Western medical and surgical journal·2023
Same author

Retrospective observational study of patient outcomes with local wound infusion vs epidural analgesia after open hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery.

BMC anesthesiology·2022
Same author

Correction to: A Composite Measure of Gambling Exposure: Availability, Accessibility or Both?

Journal of gambling studies·2021
Same author

Correction to: The Relative and Interactive Effects of Actual and Perceived Gambling Exposure on Gambling Behaviour.

Journal of gambling studies·2021
Same author

The Relative and Interactive Effects of Actual and Perceived Gambling Exposure on Gambling Behaviour.

Journal of gambling studies·2021
Same journal

The pressurised leaky funnel: rethinking recruitment, selection and retention in the UK psychiatry workforce.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Cutting through stigma: psychiatry and neurosurgery working together.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

A fourth pillar for evidence-based medicine: implications for psychiatry - CORRIGENDUM.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Understanding negative perceptions of psychiatrists on social media: lessons from public discourse and professional self-reflection.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Attachment-informed psychopharmacology in psychiatric care.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
Same journal

Acceptability and accuracy of point-of-care monitoring of lithium levels.

The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science·2026
See all related articles

Contradictory systematic reviews on case management in mental health services highlight the impact of inclusion criteria. Despite differing conclusions, available research indicates case management is generally effective.

Area of Science:

  • Mental Health Services Research
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • Systematic Review Methodology

Background:

  • The effectiveness of case management in mental health services has yielded conflicting evidence.
  • Two systematic reviews reached divergent conclusions regarding case management's impact.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare two systematic reviews with contradictory findings on case management effectiveness.
  • To analyze methodological differences influencing review outcomes in mental health.

Main Methods:

  • Summarized findings from author-conducted and Cochrane Collaboration systematic reviews.
  • Examined key methodological variations between the two systematic reviews.
  • Assessed the impact of methodological differences on the validity of review conclusions.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Discrepancies in conclusions stemmed from differing inclusion criteria (non-randomized trials, unpublished data, skewed distributions).
  • The theoretical and empirical effects of these inclusion criteria differences were discussed.
  • Methodological variations significantly influenced the interpretation of case management effectiveness.

Conclusions:

  • Systematic reviewers may balance strict inclusion criteria against data availability and statistical power.
  • Despite review discrepancies, current research supports the general effectiveness of case management in mental health.
  • Understanding methodological nuances is crucial for interpreting systematic review findings in mental health.