Effectiveness of intensive community care services for adolescents with acute psychiatric emergencies: findings from a feasibility multi-centre, parallel-group, single-blinded RCT.

Effectiveness of intensive community care services for adolescents with acute psychiatric emergencies: findings from a feasibility multi-centre, parallel-group, single-blinded RCT - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Health Technol Assess . 2026 May;30(40):1–32. doi: 10.3310/GJDO2425 Effectiveness of intensive community care services for adolescents with acute psychiatric emergencies: findings from a feasibility multi-centre, parallel-group, single-blinded RCT. Dennis Ougrin , Thilipan Thaventhiran , Ben Wong , Izabela Pilecka , Sabine Landau , Sarah Byford , Petrina Chu , Margaret Heslin , Emma Tassie , Paula Reavey , Opeyemi Olusegun Atanda , Tauseef Mehdi , Mandy Wait , Toby Zundel , Jovanka Tolmac , Joe Clacey , Leon Wehncke , Veronika Dobler , Ebony Baker , Jessica Collier , Rhys Bevan-Jones , Hassan Jafari , Ruth Woolhouse Copyright and License information PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13223881  PMID: 42148829 Abstract BACKGROUND Adolescents experiencing psychiatric emergencies often require intensive interventions to prevent hospitalisation and support their return to education, employment or training. Intensive Community Care Services aim to provide an alternative to inpatient care. AIMS To evaluate the effectiveness of Intensive Community Care Services compared to treatment as usual in reducing the time to start or return to education, employment or training for young people with psychiatric emergencies. METHOD A multicentre, parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial, including an internal feasibility phase, across seven NHS trusts in the United Kingdom. Adolescents aged 12-17 were randomised to receive either Intensive Community Care Services or treatment as usual. The primary outcome was the time to start or return to education, employment or training within a 6-month observation period. Secondary outcomes included clinical symptoms, functioning and service satisfaction. Process evaluation used semistructured visual interviews followed by thematic decomposition analysis. The impact of COVID-19 and the importance of continuity of care were explored in a series of cohort studies based in emergency departments. A consensus meeting was held to define the features of Intensive Community Care Services. RESULTS Of the approximately 977 adolescents screened, 36 were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio using a web-based randomisation system stratified by the NHS trust using variable block sizes to receive either Intensive Community Care Services or treatment as usual. A key reason for poor recruitment was the absence of an alternative to Intensive Community Care Services. The recruitment rate did not meet pre-specified progression criteria (n = 55 by the first 6 months of recruitment), and conducting a full evaluation trial was deemed not feasible. Thirty participants from the pilot sample (83.3%) returned to education, employment or training during the 6-month follow-up period, with a median time to education, employment or training of 9 days (interquartile range 1-49). The median time to education, employment or training was lower in the Intensive Community Care Services group (6 days) compared to the treatment-as-usual group (12 days), with a hazard ratio of 1.34 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 2.86). Estimated effect sizes for secondary outcomes were also in the direction of a benefit under Intensive Community Care Services, with higher satisfaction with services and improvements in clinical symptoms and functioning. There was a greater total average cost for the treatment-as-usual group at £15,155 (standard deviation 31,560), compared to £7063 (standard deviation 10,605) for Intensive Community Care Services. Due to the small sample size, no inferences regarding Intensive Community Care Services effectiveness or cost-effectiveness can be drawn. Fourteen young people participated in the process evaluation. Inpatient care received both praise for effective diagnoses and therapeutic interventions and criticism for a sterile approach and inadequate staff attention. Intensive Community Care Services was valued for the personalised approach, exemplified by beneficial home visits. During COVID-19, there was a significant reduction in emergency presentations of young people, followed by a significant increase post pandemic. The follow-up attendance rate increased by more than three times if the follow-up appointment was offered by the same clinician who saw the young person in an emergency room (odds ratio 3.66, 95% confidence interval 1.65 to 8.13). Intensive Community Care Services teams should use the modified Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Scale to assess their quality. Recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of this kind can be improved if all new Intensive Community Care Services teams are considered to be experimental services and an equipoise between Intensive Community Care Services and existing services acknowledged. FUTURE WORK Rigorous post-implementation research is warranted for those areas that choose to implement Intensive Community Care Services. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial is needed to confirm the pilot findings of the IVY study and explore the full potential of Intensive Community Care Services as an alternative to inpatient and other community-based services for young people with severe mental health needs. Clinicians' experience delivering Intensive Community Care Services should be explored in further qualitative studies. LIMITATIONS The most significant limitation of this pilot study is the very small sample size, which was a direct result of recruitment difficulties. As a result, we were unable to draw any inferences about the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of Intensive Community Care Services relative to treatment as usual. It was not possible to blind participants to the intervention they were receiving. The 6-month follow-up period may have been insufficient to capture important long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS No definitive conclusions can be drawn from this study. Preliminary results suggest that Intensive Community Care Services may support a faster return to education, employment or training than treatment as usual. Intensive Community Care Services may be cost-effective compared to treatment as usual. Additional mental health professionals should be deployed to Intensive Community Care Services during future lockdowns. The same Intensive Community Care Services professionals should offer assessments in emergency departments and provide community follow-up. Research with a larger sample is warranted to confirm these findings. FUNDING This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR127408. Plain language summary Adolescents in psychiatric crises often need intensive help to avoid hospital admission and get back into education, employment or training. Intensive Community Care Services aim to offer an alternative to hospital care for these young people. This study looked at how effective Intensive Community Care Services is compared to standard treatment, also called treatment as usual. We conducted a study across seven NHS trusts in the UK, where adolescents aged 12–17 were randomly assigned to receive either Intensive Community Care Services or treatment as usual. The main goal was to measure the time it took for them to start or return to education, employment or training within 6 months. We also looked at their clinical symptoms, daily functioning and service satisfaction. We used interviews to evaluate their experiences and also studied how COVID-19 and continuity of care affected outcomes. Out of 36 participants, 30 (83.3%) returned to education, employment or training within 6 months. The Intensive Community Care Services group returned faster (about 6 days) than the treatment-as-usual group (12 days), though the difference was not statistically significant. Still, Intensive Community Care Services showed some positive trends, like higher service satisfaction. Costs were lower for Intensive Community Care Services (£7063 on average) compared to treatment as usual (£15,155). Fourteen participants shared their experiences of using services; while hospital care was sometimes praised, Intensive Community Care Services was valued for its personalised approach. During COVID-19, fewer young people came to emergency departments, but this rose again afterwards. Follow-up attendance tripled when the same clinician was involved in emergency assessments and follow-up. Although the study did not provide conclusive results, Intensive Community Care Services shows promise in helping young people return to education, employment or training faster and maybe more cost-effective than treatment as usual. We recommend more mental health staff for Intensive Community Care Services in future lockdowns. The same clinicians should handle both emergency assessments and follow-up care. Further research with more participants is needed to confirm these findings. Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf . References Ougrin D, Thaventhiran T, Wong BH-C, Pilecka I, Landau S, Byford S, et al. Intensive community care services for adolescents with acute psychiatric emergencies: trial feasibility findings from the pilot phase of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry 2026;26(247). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-07528-2 doi: 10.1186/s12888-025-07528-2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Reavey P, Atanda O, Wong BH, Baker E, Collier J, Thaventhiran T, et al. Relational dynamics and experiences of inpatient and intensive community care for children and young people: matters for service engagement and recovery. ResearchSquare 2025. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5574483/v1 Newlove-Delgado T, Marcheselli F, Williams T, Mandalia D, Davis J, McManus S, et al. Mental Health of Children and Young People in England. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2022. NHS Digital. National Estimates, August 2021 to March 2022. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2022. Green J, Jacobs B, Beecham J, Dunn G, Kroll L, Tobias C, Briskman J. Inpatient treatment in child and adolescent psychiatry – a prospective study of health gain and costs. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2007;48:1259–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01802.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Stewart SL, Semovski V, Lapshina N. Adolescent inpatient mental health admissions: an exploration of interpersonal polyvictimization, family dysfunction, self-harm and suicidal behaviours. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 2024;55:963–74. doi: 10.1007/s10578-022-01450-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Miller DAA, Ronis ST, Slaunwhite AK, Audas R, Richard J, Tilleczek K, Zhang M. Longitudinal examination of youth readmission to mental health inpatient units. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2020;25:238–48. doi: 10.1111/camh.12371. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Department of Health and Social Care. Reforming the Mental Health Act: Government Response to Consultation. In DHSC, editor. UK Parliament Command Paper; session 2021/22 CP 501. 2021. Ougrin D, Zundel T, Corrigall R, Padmore J, Loh C. Innovations in practice: pilot evaluation of the supported discharge service (SDS): clinical outcomes and service use. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2014;19:265–9. doi: 10.1111/camh.12038. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Clisu DA, Layther I, Dover D, Viner RM, Read T, Cheesman D, et al. Alternatives to mental health admissions for children and adolescents experiencing mental health crises: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2022;27:35–60. doi: 10.1177/13591045211044743. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Ougrin D, Corrigall R, Poole J, Zundel T, Sarhane M, Slater V, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive community supported discharge service versus treatment as usual for adolescents with psychiatric emergencies: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2018;5:477–85. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30129-9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Hale DR, Bevilacqua L, Viner RM. Adolescent health and adult education and employment: a systematic review. Pediatrics 2015;136:128–40. doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-2105. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Boege I, Corpus N, Weichard M, Schepker R, Young P, Fegert JM. Long-term outcome of intensive home treatment for children and adolescents with mental health problems – 4 years after a randomized controlled clinical trial. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2021;26:310–9. doi: 10.1111/camh.12500. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Thaventhiran T, Wong BHC, Pilecka I, Masood S, Atanda O, Clacey J, et al. Evaluation of intensive community care services for young people with psychiatric emergencies: study protocol for a multi-centre parallel-group, single-blinded randomized controlled trial with an internal pilot phase. Trials 2024;25:141. doi: 10.1186/s13063-024-07974-5. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Keiller E, Masood S, Wong BHC, Avent C, Bediako K, Bird RM, et al. Intensive community care services for children and young people in psychiatric crisis: an expert opinion. BMC Med 2023;21:303. doi: 10.1186/s12916-023-02986-5. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Byford S, Harrington R, Torgerson D, Kerfoot M, Dyer E, Harrington V, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a home-based social work intervention for children and adolescents who have deliberately poisoned themselves: results of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 1999;174:56–62. doi: 10.1192/bjp.174.1.56. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Stevens K. Developing a descriptive system for a new preference-based measure of health-related quality of life for children. Qual Life Res 2009;18:1105–13. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9524-9. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Canaway AG, Frew EJ. Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: a comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y – the WAVES Pilot Study. Qual Life Res 2013;22:173–83. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0119-5. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Furber G, Segal L. The validity of the Child Health Utility instrument (CHU9D) as a routine outcome measure for use in child and adolescent mental health services. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:22. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0218-4. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. NICE Process and Methods Guides. London: NICE; 2013. [ PubMed ] Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Stevens K. Valuation of the Child Health Utility 9D Index. PharmacoEconomics 2012;30:729–47. doi: 10.2165/11599120-000000000-00000. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Ougrin D, Corrigall R, Stahl D, Poole J, Zundel T, Wait M, et al. Supported discharge service versus inpatient care evaluation (SITE): a randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of an intensive community care service versus inpatient treatment as usual for adolescents with severe psychiatric disorders: self-harm, functional impairment, and educational and clinical outcomes. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2021;30:1427–36. doi: 10.1007/s00787-020-01617-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Kauhanen L, Wan Mohd Yunus WMA, Lempinen L, Peltonen K, Gyllenberg D, Mishina K, et al. A systematic review of the mental health changes of children and young people before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2023;32:995–1013. doi: 10.1007/s00787-022-02060-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Pitchforth J, Fahy K, Ford T, Wolpert M, Viner RM, Hargreaves DS. Mental health and well-being trends among children and young people in the UK, 1995–2014: analysis of repeated cross-sectional national health surveys. Psychol Med 2019;49:1275–85. doi: 10.1017/S0033291718001757. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Bartl G, Stuart R, Ahmed N, Saunders K, Loizou S, Brady G, et al. A qualitative meta-synthesis of service users’ and carers’ experiences of assessment and involuntary hospital admissions under mental health legislations: a five-year update. BMC Psychiatry 2024;24:476. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-05914-w. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Reavey P, Poole J, Corrigall R, Zundel T, Byford S, Sarhane M, et al. The ward as emotional ecology: adolescent experiences of managing mental health and distress in psychiatric inpatient settings. Health Place 2017;46:210–8. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.05.008. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Hartley S, Redmond T, Berry K. Therapeutic relationships within child and adolescent mental health inpatient services: a qualitative exploration of the experiences of young people, family members and nursing staff. PLOS ONE 2022;17:e0262070. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262070. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Vyas NS, Birchwood M, Singh SP. Youth services: meeting the mental health needs of adolescents. Ir J Psychol Med 2015;32:13–9. doi: 10.1017/ipm.2014.73. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] McGorry P, Bates T, Birchwood M. Designing youth mental health services for the 21st century: examples from Australia, Ireland and the UK. Br J Psychiatry 2013;202:s30–5. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.119214. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Bloemraad I, Terriquez V. Cultures of engagement: the organizational foundations of advancing health in immigrant and low-income communities of color. Soc Sci Med 2016;165:214–22. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.003. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Callaghan JE, Fellin LC, Warner-Gale F. A critical analysis of child and adolescent mental health services policy in England. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2017;22:109–27. doi: 10.1177/1359104516640318. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Meza JI, Zullo L, Vargas SM, Ougrin D, Asarnow JR. Practitioner Review: Common elements in treatments for youth suicide attempts and self-harm – a practitioner review based on review of treatment elements associated with intervention benefits. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2023;64:1409–21. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.13780. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Gerstl B, Ahinkorah BO, Nguyen TP, John JR, Hawker P, Winata T, et al. Evidence-based long term interventions targeting acute mental health presentations for children and adolescents: systematic review. Front Psychiatry 2024;15:1324220. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1324220. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Boden Z, Eatough V. Understanding more fully: a multimodal hermeneutic-phenomenological approach. Qual Res Psychol 2014;11:160–77. Reavey P, Brown SD. Visual Data. In Lyons E and Coyle A, editors. Analysing Qualitative Data in Psychology. London: SAGE Publications; 2021. pp. 100–21. Reavey P, Brown SD, Kanyeredzi A, McGrath L, Tucker I. Agents and spectres: Life-space on a medium secure forensic psychiatric unit. Soc Sci Med 2019;220:273–82. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.11.012. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Boden ZV, Larkin M. Moving from Social Networks to Visual Metaphors with the Relational Mapping Interview: An Example in Early Psychosis 1. In Reavey P, editor. A Handbook of Visual Methods in Psychology. London: Routledge; 2020. pp. 358–75. Reavey P. A Handbook of Visual Methods in Psychology: Using and Interpreting Images in Qualitative Research. New York: Routledge; 2020. Reavey P, Prosser J. Visual Research in Psychology. APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol 2: Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological. APA Handbooks in Psychology®. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2012. pp. 185–207. Stenner P. Discoursing Jealousy. In Burman E, Parker I, editors. Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action. London: Routledge; 1993. pp. 94–132. Willig C. An Introduction to Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in Theory and Method. London: Sage; 2008. Creswell JW, Miller DL. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice 2000;39:124–30. Price M, Hides L, Cockshaw W, Staneva AA, Stoyanov SR. Young love: romantic concerns and associated mental health issues among adolescent help-seekers. Behav Sci 2016;6:9. doi: 10.3390/bs6020009. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Reavey P, Johnson K. Visual Approaches: Using and Interpreting Images. In Willig C and Stainton-Rogers W, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. London: SAGE Publications; 2017. pp. 354–73. Gill F, Butler S, Pistrang N. The experience of adolescent inpatient care and the anticipated transition to the community: young people’s perspectives. J Adolesc 2016;46:57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.025. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Topor A, Borg M, Mezzina R, Sells D, Marin I, Davidson L. Others: the role of family, friends, and professionals in the recovery process. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil 2006;9:17–37. Broome KM, Simpson DD, Joe GW. The role of social support following short-term inpatient treatment. Am J Addict 2002;11:57–65. doi: 10.1080/10550490252801648. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Salehi A, Ehrlich C, Kendall E, Sav A. Bonding and bridging social capital in the recovery of severe mental illness: a synthesis of qualitative research. J Mental Health 2019;28:331–9. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2018.1466033. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Jerome L, Masood S, Henden J, Bird V, Ougrin D. Solution-focused approaches for treating self-injurious thoughts and behaviours: a scoping review. BMC Psychiatry 2024;24:646. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-06101-7. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Freake H, Barley V, Kent G. Adolescents’ views of helping professionals: a review of the literature. J Adolesc 2007;30:639–53. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.06.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Wong BHC, Chu P, Calaminus P, Lavelle C, Refaat R, Ougrin D. Association between continuity of care and attendance of post-discharge follow-up after psychiatric emergency presentation. Npj Mental Health Res 2024;3:5. doi: 10.1038/s44184-023-00052-9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Sweeney A, Fahmy S, Nolan F, Morant N, Fox Z, Lloyd-Evans B, et al. The relationship between therapeutic alliance and service user satisfaction in mental health inpatient wards and crisis house alternatives: a cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e100153. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100153. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Wright C, Burns T, James P, Billings J, Johnson S, Muijen M, et al. Assertive outreach teams in London: models of operation: pan-London assertive outreach study, Part 1. Br J Psychiatry 2003;183:132–8. doi: 10.1192/bjp.183.2.132. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Savaglio M, O’Donnell R, Hatzikiriakidis K, Vicary D, Skouteris H. The impact of community mental health programs for Australian youth: a systematic review. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2022;25:573–90. doi: 10.1007/s10567-022-00384-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Shalaby RAH, Agyapong VI. Peer support in mental health: literature review. JMIR Mental Health 2020;7:e15572. doi: 10.2196/15572. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Muehlenkamp J, Brausch A, Quigley K, Whitlock J. Interpersonal features and functions of nonsuicidal self-injury. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2013;43:67–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1943-278X.2012.00128.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Gopalan G, Goldstein L, Klingenstein K, Sicher C, Blake C, McKay MM. Engaging families into child mental health treatment: updates and special considerations. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2010;19:182–96. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Ougrin D, Wong BHC, Vaezinejad M, Plener PL, Mehdi T, Romaniuk L, et al. Pandemic-related emergency psychiatric presentations for self-harm of children and adolescents in 10 countries (PREP-kids): a retrospective international cohort study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2022;31:1–13. doi: 10.1007/s00787-021-01741-6. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Wong BHC, Vaezinejad M, Plener PL, Mehdi T, Romaniuk L, Barrett E, et al. Lockdown stringency and paediatric self-harm presentations during COVID-19 pandemic: retrospective cohort study. BJPsych Open 2022;8:e75. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2022.41. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Wong BHC, Cross S, Zavaleta-Ramírez P, Bauda I, Hoffman P, Ibeziako P, et al. Self-harm in children and adolescents who presented at emergency units during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international retrospective cohort study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2023;62:998–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2022.11.016. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Boege I, Corpus N, Schepker R, Kilian R, Fegert JM. Cost-effectiveness of intensive home treatment enhanced by inpatient treatment elements in child and adolescent psychiatry in Germany: a randomised trial. Eur Psychiatry 2015;30:583–9. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.01.009. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] Huang HCH, Ougrin D. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on child and adolescent mental health services. BJPsych Open 2021;7:e145. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2021.976. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] Ougrin D. Debate: Emergency mental health presentations of young people during the COVID-19 lockdown. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2020;25:171–2. doi: 10.1111/camh.12411. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] ACTIONS View on publisher site Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Being Young : My Mental Health#1173448
• Perception of clinical management in the child and adolescent population with acute mental health conditions#265839
• Multi-component Family Support Tool Intervention (FST)#911501
• Efficiency Assessment of BREFORM. A Multicentric Stepped-wedge Randomized Control Trial.#897397
• The Relatives Experience Questionnaire for Acute Inpatient Child and Adolescence Mental Health Services (REQ-AICAMHS): reliability and validity following a Norwegian survey#264614