Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20003275›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2009

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

Christopher Dowrick, Linda Gask, Suzanne Edwards, Saadia Aseem, Peter Bower, Heather Burroughs, Amy Catlin, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Pam Clarke, Mark Gabbay and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Community Engagement in a complex intervention to improve access to primary mental health care for hard-to-reach groups.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Following the mixed methods trail: some travel advice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Slaying the dragon myth: an ethnographic study of receptionists in UK general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2013
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher DowrickPrimary Care Research Group, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. cfd@liverpool.ac.uk
Linda Gask
Suzanne Edwards
Saadia Aseem
Peter Bower
Heather Burroughs
Amy Catlin
Carolyn Chew-Graham
Pam Clarke
Mark Gabbay
Simon Gowers
Derek Hibbert
Marija Kovandzic
Jonathan Lamb
Karina Lovell
Anne Rogers
Mari Lloyd-Williams
Waquas Waheed
AMP Group
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1071Medical Research Council G0401181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommon 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.

methodsWe 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.

conclusionsOur 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.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityHealth Services Needs and DemandMental Health ServicesEuropeHealth Services ResearchHumansQuality of Health Care

Identifiers

PMID20003275
PMCPMC2799397
OpenAlexW2160427736

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.