Cited by 48Community Health and DevelopmentMental Health and Patient InvolvementMental Health Treatment and Access

Community Engagement in a complex intervention to improve access to primary mental health care for hard‐to‐reach groups

Open access
Lamb, Jonathan, Dowrick, Christopher, Burroughs, Heather, Beatty, Susan, Edwards, Suzanne, Bristow, Kate, Clarke, Pam, Hammond, Jonathan +3 more·2015·Health Expectations

Abstract

Background: Despite the availability of effective evidence‐based treatments for depression and anxiety, many ‘harder‐to‐reach’ social and patient groups experience difficulties accessing treatment. We developed a complex intervention, the AMP (Improving Access to Mental Health in Primary Care) programme, which combined community engagement (CE), tailored (individual and group) psychosocial interventions and primary care involvement. Objectives: To develop and evaluate a model for community engagement component of the complex intervention. This paper focuses on the development of relationships between stakeholders, their engagement with the issue of access to mental health and with the programme through the CE model. Design: Our evaluation draws on process data, qualitative interviews and focus groups, brought together through framework analysis to evaluate the issues and challenges encountered. Setting & participants: A case study of the South Asian community project carried out in Longsight in Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. Key findings: Complex problems require multiple local stakeholders to work in concert. Assets based approaches implicitly make demands on scarce time and resources. Community development approaches have many benefits, but perceptions of open‐ended investment are a barrier. The time‐limited nature of a CE intervention provides an impetus to ‘do it now’, allowing stakeholders to negotiate their investment over time and accommodating their wider commitments. Both tangible outcomes and recognition of process benefits were vital in maintaining involvement. Conclusions: CE interventions can play a key role in improving accessibility and acceptability by engaging patients, the public and practitioners in research and in the local service ecology.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/hex.12272

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Low recruitment in the Somali group may have reflected the overall study design (outside the trial reported here), since the community engagement interventions were not active there.

    “Low recruitment in this group may have reflected the overall study design (outside the trial reported here), since the community engagement interventions were not active here [15].”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Intervention sites section (page unavailable) says community engagement was applied in two sites: with South Asian people in Longsight and older people in Croxteth. This supports the point that it was not active at a Somali-group site, but the paper does not report Somali recruitment or suggest that the study design explained low recruitment there. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 15 Rogers B, Robinson E. The Benefits of Community Engagement: A Review of the Evidence . London: Home Office, 2004: 1 -72.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lamb, J., Dowrick, C., Burroughs, H., Beatty, S., Edwards, S., Bristow, K., Clarke, P., Hammond, J., Waheed, W., Gabbay, M., & Gask, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Keele University (GB)
Corresponding author
Lamb, Jonathan
Venue
Health Expectations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-09-29
Volume
18
Issue
6
Pages
2865-2879
ISSN
  • 1369-6513 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-7625
OpenAlex
W2104160555
Cited by
48
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Expectations (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
community participation, access to mental health care, primary care, depression, anxiety, hard-to-reach populations, South Asian communities, psychosocial interventions, stakeholder engagement, asset-based approach, community development, complex interventions, acceptability
MeSH terms
Community Participation, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mental Health Services, Primary Health Care, Psychology, Program Development, Focus Groups, Models, Organizational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review