Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19105823›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2008

Exposing the key functions of a complex intervention for shared care in mental health: case study of a process evaluation.

Richard Byng, Ian Norman, Sally Redfern, Roger Jones

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Understanding How, Why and for Whom Link Work Interventions Promote Access in Community Healthcare Settings in the United Kingdom: A Realist Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Richard ByngPrimary Care Group, Institute of Health Services Research, Peninsula Medical School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth UK. richard.byng@pms.ac.uk
Ian Norman
Sally Redfern
Roger Jones

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplex interventions have components which can vary in different contexts. Using the Realistic Evaluation framework, this study investigates how a complex health services intervention led to developments in shared care for people with long-term mental illness.

methodsA retrospective qualitative interview study was carried out alongside a randomised controlled trial. The multi-faceted intervention supported by facilitators aimed to develop systems for shared care. The study was set in London. Participants included 46 practitioners and managers from 12 participating primary health care teams and their associated community mental health teams. Interviews focussed on how and why out comes were achieved, and were analysed using a framework incorporating context and intervening mechanisms.

resultsThirty-one interviews were completed to create 12 case studies. The enquiry highlighted the importance of the catalysing, doing and reviewing functions of the facilitation process. Other facets of the intervention were less dominant. The intervention catalysed the allocation of link workers and liaison arrangements in nearly all practices. Case discussions between link workers and GPs improved individual care as well as helping link workers become part of the primary care team; but sustained integration into the team depended both on flexibility and experience of the link worker, and upon selection of relevant patients for the case discussions. The doing function of facilitators included advice and, at times, manpower, to help introduce successful systems for reviewing care, however time spent developing IT systems was rarely productive. The reviewing function of the intervention was weak and sometimes failed to solve problems in the development of liaison or recall.

conclusionCase discussions and improved liaison at times of crisis, rather than for proactive recall, were the key functions of shared care contributing to the success of Mental Health Link. This multifaceted intervention had most impact through catalysing and doing, whereas the reviewing function of the facilitation was weak, and other components were seen as less important. Realistic Evaluation provided a useful theoretical framework for this process evaluation, by allowing a specific focus on context. Although complex interventions might appear 'out of control', due to their varied manifestation in different situations, context sensitive process evaluations can help identify the intervention's key functions.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health Care, IntegratedOrganizational Case StudiesPatient Care TeamHumansInterviews as TopicLong-Term CareMental DisordersRetrospective StudiesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID19105823
PMCPMC2627847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.