Cited by 70Mental Health Treatment and AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsMental Health and Patient Involvement

Researching the mental health needs of hard-to-reach groups: managing multiple sources of evidence

Open access
Dowrick, Christopher, Gask, Linda, Edwards, Suzanne, Aseem, Saadia, Bower, Peter, Burroughs, Heather, Catlin, Amy, Chew-Graham, Carolyn +11 more·2009·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

Background: Common mental health problems impose substantial challenges to patients, carers, and health care systems. A range of interventions have demonstrable efficacy in improving the lives of people experiencing such problems. However many people are disadvantaged, either because they are unable to access primary care, or because access does not lead to adequate help. New methods are needed to understand the problems of access and generate solutions. In this paper we describe our methodological approach to managing multiple and diverse sources of evidence, within a research programme to increase equity of access to high quality mental health services in primary care. Methods: We began with a scoping review to identify the range and extent of relevant published material, and establish key concepts related to access. We then devised a strategy to collect - in parallel - evidence from six separate sources: a systematic review of published quantitative data on access-related studies; a meta-synthesis of published qualitative data on patient perspectives; dialogues with local stakeholders; a review of grey literature from statutory and voluntary service providers; secondary analysis of patient transcripts from previous qualitative studies; and primary data from interviews with service users and carers. We synthesised the findings from these diverse sources, made judgements on key emerging issues in relation to needs and services, and proposed a range of potential interventions. These proposals were debated and refined using iterative electronic and focus group consultation procedures involving international experts, local stakeholders and service users. Conclusions: Our methods break new ground by generating and synthesising multiple sources of evidence, connecting scientific understanding with the perspectives of users, in order to develop innovative ways to meet the mental health needs of under-served groups.

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 · 10.1186/1472-6963-9-226

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Murray CJL Lopez AD The Global Burden of Disease 1996 Boston, Mass.,: World Health Organization and Harvard University Press
  2. National Institute for Clinical Excellence Eating disorders: Core interventions in the treatment and management of anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa and related eating disorders 2004 London, The National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 23346610
  3. Alderson P Bero L Eccles M Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups) 2005 London, John Wiley and Sons

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dowrick, C., Gask, L., Edwards, S., Aseem, S., Bower, P., Burroughs, H., Catlin, A., Chew-Graham, C., Clarke, P., Gabbay, M., Gowers, S., Hibbert, D., Kovandzic, M., Lamb, J., Lovell, K., Rogers, A., Lloyd-Williams, M., Waheed, W., & the AMP Group
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Gask, Linda
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2009-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
226-226
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2160427736
Cited by
70
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0606-1071)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
Keywords
mental health services, health care access, equitable access, primary care, hard-to-reach populations, underserved populations, mental health needs, patient perspectives, caregivers, service user involvement, stakeholder engagement, evidence synthesis, meta-synthesis, grey literature, scoping review
MeSH terms
Europe, Health Services Accessibility, Health Services Needs and Demand, Health Services Research, Humans, Mental Health Services, Quality of Health Care

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