Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26714263›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2016

Defining continuity of care from the perspectives of mental health service users and professionals: an exploratory, comparative study.

Angela Sweeney, Jonathon Davies, Susan McLaren, Margaret Whittock, Ferew Lemma, Ruth Belling, Sarah Clement, Tom Burns, Jocelyn Catty, Ian Rees Jones and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors.

Angela SweeneyPopulation Health Institute, St George's University of London, London, UK.
Jonathon DaviesDepartment of Child, Family and Community Studies, Douglas College, British Columbia, Canada.
Susan McLarenFaculty of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Margaret WhittockFaculty of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Ferew LemmaFaculty of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Ruth BellingFaculty of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Sarah ClementDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Tom BurnsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jocelyn CattyTavistock Centre, London, UK.
Ian Rees JonesWISERD, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Diana RoseDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Til WykesDepartment of Psychology, Psychology and Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health 08/1109/198Department of Health HS&DR/08/1109/198
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuity of care (COC) is central to the organization and delivery of mental health services. Traditional definitions have excluded service users, and this lack of involvement has been linked to poor conceptual clarity surrounding the term. Consequently, very little is known about the differences and similarities in the conceptualization of COC by mental health service users and professionals.

objectiveTo explore and compare mental health service users' and professionals' definitions of COC.

methodsUsing an exploratory, qualitative design, five focus groups with 32 service users each met twice. Data were analysed thematically to generate a service user-defined model of COC. In a cross-sectional survey, health and social care professionals (n = 184) defined COC; responses were analysed thematically. Service user and professional definitions were conceptually mapped and compared to identify similarities and differences.

resultsThere was crossover between the service user and professional derived models of COC. Both contained temporal, quality, systemic, staff, hospital and needs-related elements of COC. Service users prioritized access, information, peer support and avoiding services; health professionals most frequently referred to staff, cross-sectional and temporal COC. Service users alone identified service avoidance, peer support and day centres as COC elements; professionals alone identified cross-sectional working.

conclusionsImportant similarities and differences exist in service user and professional conceptualizations of COC. Further research is necessary to explore these differences, prior to integrating service user and professional perspectives in a validated COC framework which could enable the development and evaluation of interventions to improve COC, informing policy and practice.

Indexed as

Continuity of Patient CareCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLondonMaleMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedQualitative Researchcontinuity of caregeneral adult psychiatryhealth professionalsmental health servicesservice users

Identifiers

PMID26714263
PMCPMC5006915

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.