Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22248385›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2012

Delivering stepped care: an analysis of implementation in routine practice.

David A Richards, Peter Bower, Christina Pagel, Alice Weaver, Martin Utley, John Cape, Steve Pilling, Karina Lovell, Simon Gilbody, Judy Leibowitz and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Review

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

David A RichardsMood Disorders Centre, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK. D.a.richards@exeter.ac.uk
Peter Bower
Christina Pagel
Alice Weaver
Martin Utley
John Cape
Steve Pilling
Karina Lovell
Simon Gilbody
Judy Leibowitz
Lilian Owens
Roger Paxton
Sue Hennessy
Angela Simpson
Steve Gallivan
David Tomson
Christos Vasilakis

Funding

Medical Research Council G0401181
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the United Kingdom, clinical guidelines recommend that services for depression and anxiety should be structured around a stepped care model, where patients receive treatment at different 'steps,' with the intensity of treatment (i.e., the amount and type) increasing at each step if they fail to benefit at previous steps. There are very limited data available on the implementation of this model, particularly on the intensity of psychological treatment at each step. Our objective was to describe patient pathways through stepped care services and the impact of this on patient flow and management.

methodsWe recorded service design features of four National Health Service sites implementing stepped care (e.g., the types of treatments available and their links with other treatments), together with the actual treatments received by individual patients and their transitions between different treatment steps. We computed the proportions of patients accessing, receiving, and transiting between the various steps and mapped these proportions visually to illustrate patient movement.

resultsWe collected throughput data on 7,698 patients referred. Patient pathways were highly complex and very variable within and between sites. The ratio of low (e.g., self-help) to high-intensity (e.g., cognitive behaviour therapy) treatments delivered varied between sites from 22:1, through 2.1:1, 1.4:1 to 0.5:1. The numbers of patients allocated directly to high-intensity treatment varied from 3% to 45%. Rates of stepping up from low-intensity treatment to high-intensity treatment were less than 10%.

conclusionsWhen services attempt to implement the recommendation for stepped care in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, there were significant differences in implementation and consequent high levels of variation in patient pathways. Evaluations driven by the principles of implementation science (such as targeted planning, defined implementation strategies, and clear activity specification around service organisation) are required to improve evidence on the most effective, efficient, and acceptable stepped care systems.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareAnxietyCognitive Behavioral TherapyCohort StudiesCritical PathwaysDepressionFemaleHumansMajor Depressive DisorderMalePrimary Health CareProblem SolvingPsychotherapy, BriefResearch DesignSelf CareUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22248385
PMCPMC3283464

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.