Cited by 19Cardiac Health and Mental HealthHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Education and Validation

The UPBEAT depression and coronary heart disease programme: using the UK medical research council framework to design a nurse-led complex intervention for use in primary care

Open access
Barley, Elizabeth A, Haddad, Mark, Simmonds, Rosemary, Fortune, Zoe, Walters, Paul, Murray, Joanna, Rose, Diana, Tylee, André·2012·BMC Family Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in coronary heart disease (CHD) and increases the incidence of coronary symptoms and death in CHD patients. Interventions feasible for use in primary care are needed to improve both mood and cardiac outcomes. The UPBEAT-UK programme of research has been funded by the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to explore the relationship between CHD and depression and to develop a new intervention for use in primary care. METHODS: Using the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for developing and evaluating complex interventions, we conducted a systematic review and qualitative research to develop a primary care-based nurse-led intervention to improve mood and cardiac outcomes in patients with CHD and depression. Iterative literature review was used to synthesise our empirical work and to identify evidence and theory to inform the intervention. RESULTS: We developed a primary care-based nurse-led personalised care intervention which utilises elements of case management to promote self management. Following biopsychosocial assessment, a personalised care plan is devised. Nurses trained in behaviour change techniques facilitate patients to address the problems important to them. Identification and utilisation of existing resources is promoted. Nurse time is conserved through telephone follow up. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the MRC framework for complex interventions has allowed us to develop an evidence based intervention informed by patient and clinician preferences and established theory. The feasibility and acceptability of this intervention is now being tested further in an exploratory trial.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2296-13-119

Cites

44 of 44 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?

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
Barley, E. A., Haddad, M., Simmonds, R., Fortune, Z., Walters, P., Murray, J., Rose, D., & Tylee, A.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • City, University of London (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Dorset HealthCare University NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Barley, Elizabeth A
Venue
BMC Family Practice
Published
2012-12
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
119-119
ISSN
1471-2296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2089937334
Cited by
19
References
42
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Family Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Research (University of Surrey) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1048)
  • King's College London
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
depression, coronary artery disease, nurse-led intervention, complex intervention development, MRC framework, primary care, case management, self-management, behaviour change techniques, individualized care plans, biopsychosocial assessment, telephone follow-up, feasibility and acceptability
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attitude of Health Personnel, Coronary Disease, Delivery of Health Care, Depression, Female, United Kingdom, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Care Planning, Patient Education as Topic, Primary Health Care, Self Care, Cohort Studies, Program Development, Patient-Centered Care, Case Management, Practice Patterns, Nurses', General Practice

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