Search

Background Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community‐based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non‐collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study‐Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia‐like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow‐up. Data collection and analysis Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short‐term (up to six months), medium‐term (seven to 12 months) and long‐term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confiden

Background There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. Aims This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. Method We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. Results The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. Conclusions The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

Background There is global interest in the reconfiguration of community mental health services, including primary care, to improve clinical and cost effectiveness. Aims This study seeks to describe patterns of service use, continuity of care, health risks, physical healthcare monitoring and the balance between primary and secondary mental healthcare for people with severe mental illness in receipt of secondary mental healthcare in the UK. Method We conducted an epidemiological medical records review in three UK sites. We identified 297 cases randomly selected from the three participating mental health services. Data were manually extracted from electronic patient medical records from both secondary and primary care, for a 2-year period (2012-2014). Continuous data were summarised by mean and s.d. or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were summarised as percentages. Results The majority of care was from secondary care practitioners: of the 18 210 direct contacts recorded, 76% were from secondary care (median, 36.5; IQR, 14-68) and 24% were from primary care (median, 10; IQR, 5-20). There was evidence of poor longitudinal continuity: in primary care, 31% of people had poor longitudinal continuity (Modified Modified Continuity Index ≤0.5), and 43% had a single named care coordinator in secondary care services over the 2 years. Conclusions The study indicates scope for improvement in supporting mental health service delivery in primary care. Greater knowledge of how care is organised presents an opportunity to ensure some rebalancing of the care that all people with severe mental illness receive, when they need it. A future publication will examine differences between the three sites that participated in this study.

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.

In this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.

Objective: Previous guidelines and planning documents have identified the key role primary care providers play in delivering mental health care, including the recommendation from the WHO that meeting the mental health needs of the population in many low and middle income countries will only be achieved through greater integration of mental health services within general medical settings. This position paper aims to build upon this work and present a global framework for enhancing mental health care delivered within primary care.Methods: This paper synthesizes previous guidelines, empirical data from the literature and experiences of the authors in varied clinical settings to identify core principles and the key elements of successful collaboration, and organizes these into practical guidelines that can be adapted to any setting.Results: The paper proposes a three-step approach. The first is mental health services that any primary care provider can deliver with or without the presence of a mental health professional. Second is practical ways that effective collaboration can enhance this care. The third looks at wider system changes required to support these new roles and how better collaboration can lead to new responses to respond to challenges facing all mental health systems.Conclusions: This simple framework can be applied in any jurisdiction or country to enhance the detection, treatment, and prevention of mental health problems, reinforcing the role of the primary care provider in delivering care and showing how collaborative care can lead to better outcomes for people with mental health and addiction problems.

1 oktober 2011, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Primary care professionals often manage patients with multiple long-term health conditions, but managing multimorbidity is challenging given time and resource constraints and interactions between conditions. OBJECTIVE: To explore GP and nurse perceptions of multimorbidity and the influence on service organization and clinical decision making. METHODS: A qualitative interview study with primary care professionals in practices in Greater Manchester, U.K. Interviews were conducted with 15 GPs and 10 practice nurses. RESULTS: Primary care professionals identified tensions between delivering care to meet quality targets and fulfilling the patient's agenda, tensions which are exacerbated in multimorbidity. They were aware of the inconvenience suffered by patients through attendance at multiple clinic appointments when care was structured around individual conditions. They reported difficulties managing patients with multimorbidity in limited consultation time, which led to adoption of an 'additive-sequential' decision-making model which dealt with problems in priority order until consultation resources were exhausted, when further management was deferred. Other challenges included the need for patients to co-ordinate their care, the difficulties of self-management support in multimorbidity and problems of making sense of the relationships between physical and mental health. Doctor and nurse accounts included limited consideration of multimorbidity in terms of the interactions between conditions or synergies between management of different conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care professionals identify a number of challenges in care for multimorbidity and adopt a particular model of decision making to deliver care for multiple individual conditions. However, they did not describe specific decision making around managing multimorbidity per se.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 16% of clinically confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage. However, there is frequently no routine follow-up by the primary healthcare team (PHCT) to identify psychiatric morbidity after miscarriage. AIM: To explore women's experiences of miscarriage care that may impact on the ability of the PHCT to detect psychiatric morbidity after a miscarriage. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews of patients, and interviews of healthcare professionals in focus groups. SETTING: Patients who had experienced a miscarriage were recruited from the gynaecology wards of a district general hospital. The healthcare professionals were recruited from 14 local general practices. METHOD: Post-miscarriage 'psychiatric cases' were identified using the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale. A theoretical sampling technique was used to identify patients for semi-structured interviews. Interviews with healthcare professionals were conducted in three focus groups. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged from the interviews and focus groups that characterised the experience of patients and the perception of health professionals after a miscarriage. These were a need and desire for formal follow-up plans, poor recall and understanding of initial events, a need for more information and answers, normalisation of miscarriage by the PHCT, guilt and false assumptions, variable standards of care and skills deficiencies, and suggestions for further improvements. CONCLUSION: Themes that emerged from interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups indicate that there are deficiencies and inconsistencies in current care provision that are likely to impact on the ability of the PHCT to identify psychiatric morbidity following a miscarriage.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 16% of clinically confirmed pregnancies end in miscarriage. However, there is frequently no routine follow-up by the primary healthcare team (PHCT) to identify psychiatric morbidity after miscarriage. AIM: To explore women's experiences of miscarriage care that may impact on the ability of the PHCT to detect psychiatric morbidity after a miscarriage. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews of patients, and interviews of healthcare professionals in focus groups. SETTING: Patients who had experienced a miscarriage were recruited from the gynaecology wards of a district general hospital. The healthcare professionals were recruited from 14 local general practices. METHOD: Post-miscarriage 'psychiatric cases' were identified using the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale. A theoretical sampling technique was used to identify patients for semi-structured interviews. Interviews with healthcare professionals were conducted in three focus groups. RESULTS: Seven themes emerged from the interviews and focus groups that characterised the experience of patients and the perception of health professionals after a miscarriage. These were a need and desire for formal follow-up plans, poor recall and understanding of initial events, a need for more information and answers, normalisation of miscarriage by the PHCT, guilt and false assumptions, variable standards of care and skills deficiencies, and suggestions for further improvements. CONCLUSION: Themes that emerged from interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups indicate that there are deficiencies and inconsistencies in current care provision that are likely to impact on the ability of the PHCT to identify psychiatric morbidity following a miscarriage.

Background. GPs' attitudes towards depression vary, as do their abilities to detect and manage it effectively. Associations between attitudes and clinical behaviour have not yet been demonstrated directly. We tested two hypotheses: (1) that questionnaire measures of GPs' confidence in identifying depression predict their ability to identify depression in their patients; and (2) that GPs who prefer antidepressants prescribe more than those who prefer psychotherapy. Methods. Forty GPs in Liverpool and Manchester completed the Depression Attitude Questionnaire (DAQ) and were asked for prescribing (PACT) information. Attender surveys using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), in combination with GP ratings of patients' psychological status, generated indices for GPs' case identification, bias and accuracy. We tested associations between these indices and the four DAQ components, in particular GPs' confidence in diagnosis, across a total of 1436 patients. We also compared the DAQ component on attitudes to treatment with relevant PACT data. Results. The DAQ assessment of GPs' ability to identify cases of depression bore no relationship to their observed ability, as measured by accuracy, bias, or identification indices. However, there were significant associations between observed diagnostic ability and: preference for psychotherapy; ease in managing depression; and, belief in successful treatment. PACT data were available for 26 (65%) GPs. There was an association between preference for antidepressants and prescription of SSRIs (rs 0.3981, P < 0.044), but not for overall antidepressant or tricyclic prescribing, or for dose of dothiepin. Conclusions. The DAQ measure of ease of identification is not valid when compared to actual clinical practice. The ability of GPs to identify depression may not be an independent variable, but may rather reflect other beliefs, attitudes and skills. This has considerable implications for educational interventions in primary care.