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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical burden, a critical determinant of medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia, after the administration of Aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM). Methods: This study was a retrospective, non-interventional, multicenter, naturalistic observational study conducted through the analysis of participants’ electronic medical records. Study participants were recruited from eight sites. Data were collected at baseline, defined as the time of AOM administration, and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months thereafter. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB) score over 12 months, and the secondary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score. Results: The data of 139 participants were analyzed, revealing a statistically significant decrease of 26.8% in CGI-CB scores and 13.4% in CGI-I scores over 12 months. Upon comparison between adjacent visit intervals, significant reductions were observed for both measures between month 3 and month 6. Conclusions This study is the first multicenter investigation to simultaneously evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of transitioning to AOM in the context of polypharmacy. The study suggested that AOM may contribute to reducing the clinical burden, thereby improving the quality of life for patients with schizophrenia.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical burden, a critical determinant of medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia, after the administration of Aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM). Methods: This study was a retrospective, non-interventional, multicenter, naturalistic observational study conducted through the analysis of participants’ electronic medical records. Study participants were recruited from eight sites. Data were collected at baseline, defined as the time of AOM administration, and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months thereafter. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB) score over 12 months, and the secondary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score. Results: The data of 139 participants were analyzed, revealing a statistically significant decrease of 26.8% in CGI-CB scores and 13.4% in CGI-I scores over 12 months. Upon comparison between adjacent visit intervals, significant reductions were observed for both measures between month 3 and month 6. Conclusions This study is the first multicenter investigation to simultaneously evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of transitioning to AOM in the context of polypharmacy. The study suggested that AOM may contribute to reducing the clinical burden, thereby improving the quality of life for patients with schizophrenia.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical burden, a critical determinant of medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia, after the administration of Aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM). Methods: This study was a retrospective, non-interventional, multicenter, naturalistic observational study conducted through the analysis of participants’ electronic medical records. Study participants were recruited from eight sites. Data were collected at baseline, defined as the time of AOM administration, and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months thereafter. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB) score over 12 months, and the secondary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score. Results: The data of 139 participants were analyzed, revealing a statistically significant decrease of 26.8% in CGI-CB scores and 13.4% in CGI-I scores over 12 months. Upon comparison between adjacent visit intervals, significant reductions were observed for both measures between month 3 and month 6. Conclusions This study is the first multicenter investigation to simultaneously evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of transitioning to AOM in the context of polypharmacy. The study suggested that AOM may contribute to reducing the clinical burden, thereby improving the quality of life for patients with schizophrenia.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the clinical burden, a critical determinant of medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia, after the administration of Aripiprazole once-monthly (AOM). Methods: This study was a retrospective, non-interventional, multicenter, naturalistic observational study conducted through the analysis of participants’ electronic medical records. Study participants were recruited from eight sites. Data were collected at baseline, defined as the time of AOM administration, and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months thereafter. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Clinical Benefit (CGI-CB) score over 12 months, and the secondary outcome measure was the change in the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) score. Results: The data of 139 participants were analyzed, revealing a statistically significant decrease of 26.8% in CGI-CB scores and 13.4% in CGI-I scores over 12 months. Upon comparison between adjacent visit intervals, significant reductions were observed for both measures between month 3 and month 6. Conclusions This study is the first multicenter investigation to simultaneously evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of transitioning to AOM in the context of polypharmacy. The study suggested that AOM may contribute to reducing the clinical burden, thereby improving the quality of life for patients with schizophrenia.