Trial reportThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2004
Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial of shared care development for long-term mental illness.
Trial report in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying primary care quality indicators for people with serious mental illness: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017Pooled it
- Shared care across the interface between primary and specialty care in management of long term conditions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Can team-based care improve patient satisfaction? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: case study of a process evaluation.BMC health services research · 2008Trial
- Impact of multi-professional medication reviews (MPMRs) on medication prescriptions in psychiatry.PloS one · 2026Observational
- Identification of interventions to improve patient experienced quality of care in transitions between healthcare settings: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Learning collaboration at the primary-secondary care interface: a dual-method study to define design principles for interventions in postgraduate training programmes.BMC medical education · 2023Review
- Facilitation roles and characteristics associated with research use by healthcare professionals: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Methods for sample size determination in cluster randomized trials.International journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
- Shared care in mental illness: A rapid review to inform implementation.International journal of mental health systems · 2011Article
- Effectiveness of service linkages in primary mental health care: a narrative review part 1.BMC health services research · 2011Review
- Variables associated with general practitioners taking on patients with common mental disorders.Mental health in family medicine · 2008Article
- Reducing stigma and discrimination: Candidate interventions.International journal of mental health systems · 2008Article
- Integrated primary mental health care: threat or opportunity in the new NHS?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2004Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care clinicians have a considerable amount of contact with patients suffering from long-term mental illness. The United Kingdom's National Health Service now requires general practices to contribute more systematically to care for this group of patients.
aimsTo determine the effects of Mental Health Link, a facilitation-based quality improvement programme designed to improve communication between the teams and systems of care within general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Exploratory cluster randomised controlled trial.
settingTwenty-three urban general practices and associated community mental health teams.
methodPractices were randomised to service development as usual or to the Mental Health Link programme. Questionnaires and an audit of notes assessed 335 patients' satisfaction, unmet need, mental health status, processes of mental and physical care, and general practitioners' satisfaction with services and beliefs about service development. Service use and intervention costs were also measured.
resultsThere were no significant differences in patients' perception of their unmet need, satisfaction or general health. Intervention patients had fewer psychiatric relapses than control patients (mean = 0.39 versus 0.71, respectively, P = 0.02) but there were no differences in documented processes of care. Intervention practitioners were more satisfied and services improved significantly for intervention practices. There was an additional mean direct cost of pound 63 per patient with long-term mental illness for the intervention compared with the control.
conclusionSignificant differences were seen in relapse rates and practitioner satisfaction. Improvements in service development did not translate into documented improvements in care. This could be explained by the intervention working via the improvements in informal shared care developed through better link working. This type of facilitated intervention tailored to context has the potential to improve care and interface working.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15113492PMC1314850What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.