Cited by 5Psychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Services Management and Policy

Carrots and sticks on opposite sides of the Atlantic: integration incentives for people with serious mental illness in England

Open access
Ramanuj, Parashar Pravin, Breslau, Joshua, Strathdee, Geraldine, Spaeth-Rublee, Brigitta, Pincus, Harold Alan·2017·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

Integrating care pathways between primary and specialist mental health care is seen as integral to improving the health of people with mental illness. Multiple integration initiatives have been implemented, but few have tried to integrate care for people with serious mental illness. This column describes two such initiatives in the United States and in England. The two schemes are compared according to the population they target, payment mechanisms, accountability structures, service delivery, outcomes, and lessons learned.

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 · 10.1176/appi.ps.201600095

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • In the UK, the Commission for Quality and Innovation is implementing pay-for-performance for mental health, with payments based on meeting national quality improvement targets.

    “In the UK, the Commission for Quality and Innovation is implementing payfor-performance for mental health, in which payments are based on meeting national quality improvement targets 96 .”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramanuj, P. P., Breslau, J., Strathdee, G., Spaeth-Rublee, B., & Pincus, H. A.
Affiliations
  • National Health Service (GB)
  • Dr. Ramanuj and Ms. Spaeth-Rublee are with the Behavioral Health Services and Policy Research Division, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York City (e-mail: ). Dr. Breslau is with the Health Behavioral Sciences Division, RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh. Dr. Strathdee is with the Mental Health Intelligence Network, National Health Service England, London. Dr. Pincus is with the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York City. Benjamin G. Druss, M.D., M.P.H., is editor of this column.
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
68
Issue
5
Pages
430-432
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2562702502
Cited by
5
References
11
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
0.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Services Management and Policy
Keywords
severe mental illness, integrated care, primary care, specialist mental health services, care pathways, payment mechanisms, accountability structures, service delivery, health outcomes, cross-national comparison, United States, England
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, England, Humans, Mental Health Services, United States, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated

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