ArticleBMC family practice2016
The role of boundary spanners in delivering collaborative care: a process evaluation.
Article in BMC family practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies for Sustaining the Hospital-Wide "One Bed" Model in China: A Single-Centre Descriptive Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Diplomatic roles of regional coordinators for WHO Member States.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Article
- Who are the healthcare professionals involved in interprofessional team meetings in French multidisciplinary primary care centres? A quantitative analysis of eight centres.BMC primary care · 2026Article
- Implementing and sustaining dementia care coordinators across integrated care systems: a realist evaluation.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Patient care in complex Sociotechnological ecosystems and learning health systems.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Exploring cross-boundary collaboration for youth mental health in Sweden - a qualitative study using the integrative framework for collaborative governance.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Knowledge boundaries for implementation of quality improvement interventions; a qualitative study.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the participation and engagement of primary care in shared-care arrangements with community mental health services for preventive care of people with serious mental illness: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Scaling up an intervention to protect preterm infants from neurodevelopmental disabilities - findings from a qualitative process evaluation comparing standard with enhanced quality improvement support packages for maternity units in England.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Community boundary spanners as an addition to the health workforce to reach marginalised people: a scoping review of the literature.Human resources for health · 2018Article
- Regional Integrated Cardiovascular Risk Management Care Pathway in the Netherlands: Benefits and Working Mechanisms.International journal of integrated careArticle
- The primary care brain health navigator: A perspective on implementation.Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOn average, people with schizophrenia and psychosis die 13-30 years sooner than the general population (World Psychiatry 10 (1):52-77, 2011). Mental and physical health care is often provided by different organisations, different practitioners and in different settings which makes collaborative care difficult. Research is needed to understand and map the impact of new collaborative ways of working at the primary/secondary care interface (PloS One 7 (5); e36468). The evaluation presented in this paper was designed to explore the potential of a Community and Physical Health Co-ordinator role (CPHC) (CPHCs were previously Care Co-ordinators within the Community Mental Health Team, Community in the title CPHC refers to Community Mental Health) and Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings across primary and community care, with the aim of improving collaboration of mental and physical health care for service users with Severe Mental Illness (SMI).
methodsData collection took place across five general practices (GPs) and a Community Mental Health Team (CMHT) in the Northwest of England, as part of a process evaluation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of GP staff (n= 18) and CMHT staff (n=4), a focus group with CMHT staff (n=8) and a survey completed by 13 CMHT staff, alongside cardiovascular risk data and MDT actions. Framework analysis was used to manage and interpret data.
resultsThe results from the evaluation demonstrate that a CPHC role and MDT meetings are effective mechanisms for improving the collaboration and co-ordination of physical health care for SMI service users. The findings highlight the importance of embedding and supporting the CPHC role, with an emphasis on protected time and continuing professional roles and integrating multiple perspectives through MDT meetings. Considering the importance of physical health care for SMI service users and the complex environment, these are important findings for practitioners, researchers and policy makers in the field of primary care and mental health.
conclusionThere is an increasing focus on integration and collaborative working to ensure the delivery of quality care across the whole patient pathway, with a growing need for professionals to work together across service and professional boundaries. The introduction of a two pronged approach to collaboration has shown some important improvements in the management of physical health care for service users with SMI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.