Cited by 61Mental Health Treatment and AccessPsychiatric care and mental health servicesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Improving access to psychosocial interventions for common mental health problems in the United Kingdom: narrative review and development of a conceptual model for complex interventions

Open access
Gask, Linda, Bower, Peter, Lamb, Jonathan, Burroughs, Heather, Chew-Graham, Carolyn, Edwards, Suzanne, Hibbert, Derek, Kovandžić, Marija +5 more·2012·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom and worldwide, there is significant policy interest in improving the quality of care for patients with mental health disorders and distress. Improving quality of care means addressing not only the effectiveness of interventions but also the issue of limited access to care. Research to date into improving access to mental health care has not been strongly rooted within a conceptual model, nor has it systematically identified the different elements of the patient journey from identification of illness to receipt of care. This paper set out to review core concepts underlying patient access to mental health care, synthesise these to develop a conceptual model of access, and consider the implications of the model for the development and evaluation of interventions for groups with poor access to mental health care such as older people and ethnic minorities. METHODS: Narrative review of the literature to identify concepts underlying patient access to mental health care, and synthesis into a conceptual model to support the delivery and evaluation of complex interventions to improve access to mental health care. RESULTS: The narrative review adopted a process model of access to care, incorporating interventions at three levels. The levels comprise (a) community engagement (b) addressing the quality of interactions in primary care and (c) the development and delivery of tailored psychosocial interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The model we propose can form the basis for the development and evaluation of complex interventions in access to mental health care. We highlight the key methodological challenges in evaluating the overall impact of access interventions, and assessing the relative contribution of the different elements of the model.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-12-249

Cites

88 of 88 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?

  • The reviews emphasised both heterogeneity and commonalities in access issues within and across under-represented groups.

    “The reviews [8,9] emphasised both heterogeneity and commonalities in access issues within and across under-represented groups.”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Results sections on models and processes of access describe factors shared across groups and variation between patient groups. The paper also discusses distinct approaches for underserved groups, including older people and ethnic minorities. The passages do not clearly address heterogeneity within those groups, so that part of the claim is not established. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    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

1 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Goldberg D Huxley P Common Mental Disorders: A biosocial model 1992 London: Routledge

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gask, L., Bower, P., Lamb, J., Burroughs, H., Chew-Graham, C., Edwards, S., Hibbert, D., Kovandžić, M., Lovell, K., Rogers, A., Waheed, W., Dowrick, C., & Group, A. R.
Affiliations
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • Lancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Gask, Linda
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2012-08-13
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
249-249
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2059536672
Cited by
61
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1071)
  • Goddard Space Flight Center
  • Programme Grants for Applied Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
access to mental health care, psychosocial interventions, common mental disorders, complex interventions, patient journey, community participation, primary care, personalized interventions, older adults, ethnic minorities, intervention evaluation
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, United Kingdom, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Mental Health Services, Quality of Health Care, Models, Organizational, Quality Improvement

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