Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22889290›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2012

Improving access to psychosocial interventions for common mental health problems in the United Kingdom: narrative review and development of a conceptual model for complex interventions.

Linda Gask, Peter Bower, Jonathan Lamb, Heather Burroughs, Carolyn Chew-Graham, Suzanne Edwards, Derek Hibbert, Marija Kovandžić, Karina Lovell, Anne Rogers and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A qualitative exploration of factors that influence engagement with a digital mental health intervention for women with metastatic breast cancer: Finding My Way-Advanced.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

13 authors.

Linda GaskManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Health Sciences Research Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, 5th Floor Williamson Building, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, UK. linda.gask@manchester.ac.uk
Peter Bower
Jonathan Lamb
Heather Burroughs
Carolyn Chew-Graham
Suzanne Edwards
Derek Hibbert
Marija Kovandžić
Karina Lovell
Anne Rogers
Waquas Waheed
Christopher Dowrick
AMP Research Group

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundIn the United Kingdom and worldwide, there is significant policy interest in improving the quality of care for patients with mental health disorders and distress. Improving quality of care means addressing not only the effectiveness of interventions but also the issue of limited access to care. Research to date into improving access to mental health care has not been strongly rooted within a conceptual model, nor has it systematically identified the different elements of the patient journey from identification of illness to receipt of care. This paper set out to review core concepts underlying patient access to mental health care, synthesise these to develop a conceptual model of access, and consider the implications of the model for the development and evaluation of interventions for groups with poor access to mental health care such as older people and ethnic minorities.

methodsNarrative review of the literature to identify concepts underlying patient access to mental health care, and synthesis into a conceptual model to support the delivery and evaluation of complex interventions to improve access to mental health care.

resultsThe narrative review adopted a process model of access to care, incorporating interventions at three levels. The levels comprise (a) community engagement (b) addressing the quality of interactions in primary care and (c) the development and delivery of tailored psychosocial interventions.

conclusionsThe model we propose can form the basis for the development and evaluation of complex interventions in access to mental health care. We highlight the key methodological challenges in evaluating the overall impact of access interventions, and assessing the relative contribution of the different elements of the model.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityHumansMental DisordersMental Health ServicesModels, OrganizationalQuality ImprovementQuality of Health CareUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID22889290
PMCPMC3515797

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.