Advancing Community-Based Collaborative Mental Health Care Through Interdisciplinary Family Health Teams in Ontario
Open accessAbstract
Collaborative mental health care is a widely advocated model of community-based mental health care delivery. Previous work suggests that several contextual factors, such as the lack of stable funding for non-physician providers, have prevented widespread implementation of this model in Ontario. The introduction of interdisciplinary Family Health Teams (FHTs) as part of Ontario's primary health care renewal strategy presents an opportunity to overcome some of these barriers. This case study of emerging FHTs examines how contextual factors influence the mix of providers and quality of collaborative mental health delivery in FHTs. The findings inform policy-makers of opportunities to further develop community-based collaborative mental health care.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
A broad range of factors internal and external to the health care team influence how well IPCTs collaborate.
“The existing academic and policy literature suggests a broad range of factors both internal and external to the health care team that influence how well IPCTs collaborate [4, 22–27].”
From ‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
Empirical support is found for some factors within each of the macro, meso, micro and individual gears.
“When the findings are viewed within the proposed ‘gears’ conceptual model, empirical support is found for some factors within each of the macro, meso, micro and individual gears [25, 26, 38].”
From ‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
Lack of input to board decision-making and part-time status of some health professionals led to feelings of lack of power in a study of IPCT collaboration in Ontario, Canada.
“For example, lack of input to board decision-making and part-time status of some health professionals led to feelings of lack of power in a study of IPCT collaboration in Ontario, Canada [26].”
From ‘Gearing Up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework (2016) · cites this paper as [26]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 5 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Mulvale, G., Danner, U., & Pasic, D.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Lakehead University (CA)
- ORCID
- Mulvale, Gillian
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health
- Published
- 2008-09-01
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 55-73
- ISSN
- 0713-3936 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2328732772
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- McMaster University
- Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- community mental health services, non-physician providers, mental health care quality, contextual factors, Ontario
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
