The journal of mental health administration

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 113–125 | Cite as

Critical ingredients of assertive community treatment: Judgments of the experts

  • John H. McGrew
  • Gary R. Bond


Twenty experts on assertive community treatment (ACT) rated the importance of 73 program elements, also indicating ideal model specifications (e.g., minimum time commitment for psychiatrist) when appropriate. Interexpert agreement on ratings of importance was high (intraclassr=.94), although there was less agreement for some areas—for example, team structure (intraclassr=.70). Survey responses suggested several areas of increasing emphasis (e.g., vocational and addictions specialists) and of decreasing emphasis (e.g., the avoidance of office visits). Two subgroups of experts were identified—those who advocated large multidisciplinary teams (100 or more clients) and day and evening shifts, and those who advocated smaller, often generalist, teams (approximately 50 clients). Experts also reported ideal staffing for an ACT team. The most frequently identified disciplines were psychiatrist, nurse, and social worker. Implications for mental health policy—for example, quality assurance and program standards—are discussed.


Mental Health Service Assertive Community Treatment Importance Rating Community Psychiatry Assertive Community Treatment Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stein LI, Test MA: An alternative to mental hospital treatment. I: Conceptual model, treatment program, and clinical evaluation.Archives of General Psychiatry 1980; 37:392–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Test MA: Training in community living. In: Liberman RP (Ed.):Handbook of Psychiatric Rehabilitation. New York: MacMillan, 1992, pp. 153–170.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Witheridge TF: The “active ingredients” of an in vivo community support program.New Directions for Mental Health Services 1991; 52:47–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thompson KS, Griffith E, Leaf PJ: A historical review of the Madison model of community care.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1990; 41:625–634.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bond GR: Variations in an assertive outreach model.New Directions for Mental Health Services 1991; 52:65–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Test MA: Programs of Assertive Community Treatment: Twenty Years of Research. Paper presented at the NIMH-sponsored workshop, Building Social Work Knowledge for Effective Mental Health Services and Policies, Bethesda, MD, April, 1992.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olfson M: Assertive community treatment: An evaluation of the experimental evidence.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1990; 41:634–641.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Solomon P: The efficacy of case management services for severely disabled clients.Community Mental Health Journal 1992; 28:163–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taube CA, Morlock L, Burns B, et al.: New directions in research on assertive community treatment.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1990; 41:642–647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bickman L: The functions of program theory. In: Bickman L (Ed.):Using Program Theory in Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGrew JH, Bond GR, Dietzen L, et al.: Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994; 62:670–678.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Institute of Mental Health: Programs of Assertive Community Treatment. National Institute of Mental Health-sponsored meeting, Rockville, MD, December, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Scott AG, Sechrest L: Strength of theory and theory of strength.Evaluation and Program Planning 1989; 12:329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hu T, Jerrell J: Cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches in treating severely mentally ill in California.Schizophrenia Bulletin 1991; 17:461–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sechrest L, West RG, Phillips MA, et al.: Some neglected problems in evaluation and research: Strength and integrity of treatments. In: Sechrest L, West RG, Phillips MA, et al. (Eds.):Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Vol. 4. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wisconsin Administrative Code:HSS 63 Community Support Programs for Chronically Mentally Ill Persons. Madison: Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Community Services, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bond GR, Miller LD, Krumwied RD, et al.: Assertive case management in three CMHCs: A controlled study.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1988; 39:411–418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dixon WJ:BMDP statistical software. Rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levine M, Toro P, Perkins D: Social and community interventions.Annual Review of Psychology 1993; 44:525–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diamond RJ, Wikler DI: Ethical problems in community treatment of the chronically mentally ill.New Directions for Mental Health Services 1985; 26:85–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anthony W: Managed care: A misnomer?Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1993; 44:794–795.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goeke DE: Effects of Client, Treatment, and Community Variables on Hospitalization of the Chronically Mentally Ill: An Ecological Perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1993.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Felner RD, Phillips RSC, DuBois D, et al.: Ecological interventions and the process of change for prevention: Wedding theory and research to implementation in real world settings.American Journal of Community Psychology 1991; 19:379–387.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bachrach LL: The chronic patient: On exporting and importing model programs.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1988; 39:1257–1258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Palumbo DJ, Oliviero A: Implementation theory and the theory-driven approach to validity.Evaluation and Program Planning 1989; 12:337–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brekke JS, Wolkon GH: Monitoring program implementation in community mental health settings.Evaluation and the Health Professions 1988; 11:425–440.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Clark RE, Fox TS: A framework for evaluating the economic impact of case management.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 1993; 44:469–473.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hu T, Jerrell J:Service Variations and Costs of Case Management for Severely Mentally Ill Clients. Working Paper No. 4-93. Berkeley, CA: Institute for Mental Health Services Research, 1993.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jacobs DR, Moxley DP: Anticipating managed mental health care: Implications for psychosocial rehabilitation agencies.Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal 1993; 17:15–31.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Weisbrod BA, Test MA, Stein LI: An alternative to mental hospital treatment II: Economic benefit-cost analysis.Archives of General Psychiatry 1980; 37:400–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Mental Health Administrators 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • John H. McGrew
    • 1
  • Gary R. Bond
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Purdue University School of ScienceIndiana University-Purdue University at IndianapolisIndianapolis

Personalised recommendations