Observer-Blind Randomized Control Trial for the Effectiveness of Intensive Case Management in Seoul: Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes for Severe Mental Illness.
Hye-Young Min, Seung-Hee Ahn, Jeung Suk Lim, Hwa Yeon Seo, Sung Joon Cho, Seung Yeon Lee, Dohhee Kim, Kihoon You, Hyun Seo Choi, Su-Jin Yang, Jee Eun Park, Bong Jin Hahm, Hae Woo Lee, Jee Hoon Sohn
{"title":"Observer-Blind Randomized Control Trial for the Effectiveness of Intensive Case Management in Seoul: Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes for Severe Mental Illness.","authors":"Hye-Young Min, Seung-Hee Ahn, Jeung Suk Lim, Hwa Yeon Seo, Sung Joon Cho, Seung Yeon Lee, Dohhee Kim, Kihoon You, Hyun Seo Choi, Su-Jin Yang, Jee Eun Park, Bong Jin Hahm, Hae Woo Lee, Jee Hoon Sohn","doi":"10.30773/pi.2024.0340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66-25.32).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.</p>","PeriodicalId":21164,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Investigation","volume":"22 5","pages":"513-521"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12104754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0340","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM).
Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM.
Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21-1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66-25.32).
Conclusion: This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.
期刊介绍:
The Psychiatry Investigation is published on the 25th day of every month in English by the Korean Neuropsychiatric Association (KNPA). The Journal covers the whole range of psychiatry and neuroscience. Both basic and clinical contributions are encouraged from all disciplines and research areas relevant to the pathophysiology and management of neuropsychiatric disorders and symptoms, as well as researches related to cross cultural psychiatry and ethnic issues in psychiatry. The Journal publishes editorials, review articles, original articles, brief reports, viewpoints and correspondences. All research articles are peer reviewed. Contributions are accepted for publication on the condition that their substance has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Authors submitting papers to the Journal (serially or otherwise) with a common theme or using data derived from the same sample (or a subset thereof) must send details of all relevant previous publications and simultaneous submissions. The Journal is not responsible for statements made by contributors. Material in the Journal does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor or of the KNPA. Manuscripts accepted for publication are copy-edited to improve readability and to ensure conformity with house style.