CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 31Psychiatric care and mental health servicesHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealthcare Systems and Technology

Mental Health Link: the development and formative evaluation of a complex intervention to improve shared care for patients with long‐term mental illness

Byng, Richard, Jones, Roger·2004·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2003.00439.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims and objectives This study aims to develop an intervention and related conceptual framework for developing shared care for patients with long‐term mental illness, and to provide a case study of the development of a complex intervention in primary care. Methods A pragmatic iterative design involved a literature review and focus groups followed by a formative evaluation including reflection, questionnaires and interviews. General practices and associated community mental health teams in Southeast London were involved. Participants included community mental health workers, psychiatrists, practice nurses, general practitioners, managers and local experts with an interest in primary mental health care. Results The model for shared care includes the core components of improved communication together with the development of a register and database with systems for review and recall. Local needs assessment, audit, training and guidelines are complimentary components. The intervention, Mental Health Link, is a facilitated quality improvement programme which aims to expedite the development of services by bringing the teams together to agree on a model of shared care suited to local needs, skills and interests, and by supporting the development of practice systems. Conclusions A model for shared care needs to take into account interdependencies of the components as well as the relationship with the context. The heterogeneity of primary and community care need to be reflected in the development of complex interventions designed to enhance shared care. It is possible to develop a generalizable complex intervention which is sensitive to local circumstances.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2003.00439.x

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Fourteen included studies explored the acceptability and/or feasibility of the intervention to different stakeholders, including providers, recipients or policy makers and service commissioners.

    “Fourteen studies explored the acceptability and/or feasibility of the intervention to different stakeholders, including providers, recipients or policy makers and service commissioners [27, 29–32, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48].”

    From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Interventions were delivered in a variety of settings (e.g. inpatient, outpatient clinics and home-based settings) and targeted a wide range of conditions, such as mental health conditions, stroke, cancer and other chronic illnesses.

    “Interventions were delivered in a variety of settings (e.g. inpatient, outpatient clinics and home-based settings) and targeted a wide range of conditions, such as mental health conditions [28, 30, 35, 40, 47], stroke [31, 36, 39], cancer [29, 32, 33, 37, 42] and other chronic illnesses [25, 34, 38].”

    From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [40]

  • Several included studies used mixed methods, combining qualitative strategies to explore stakeholders' perspectives and quantitative analysis to estimate the intervention effect.

    “Several studies used mixed methods, combining qualitative strategies to explore stakeholders’ perspectives and quantitative analysis to estimate the intervention effect [24, 27, 28, 33, 35–37, 40, 42].”

    From Optimisation of complex health interventions prior to a randomised controlled trial: a scoping review of strategies used (2016) · cites this paper as [40]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Byng, R., & Jones, R.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Byng, Richard
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01-20
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
27-36
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2753.2003.00439.x
OpenAlex
W2114690719
Cited by
31
References
26
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
shared care, long-term mental illness, complex intervention development, primary care mental health, community mental health teams, general practice, quality improvement programs, interprofessional communication, needs assessment, practice system
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cooperative Behavior, Data Collection, United Kingdom, Health Services Research, Humans, Mental Health Services, Patient Care Team, Efficiency, Organizational, Organizational Case Studies

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