Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28407746›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2017

Understanding experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health care discussions within mental health care planning.

Nicola Small, Helen Brooks, Andrew Grundy, Rebecca Pedley, Chris Gibbons, Karina Lovell, Penny Bee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2017. 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
12.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Supported decision-making interventions in mental healthcare: A systematic review of current evidence and implementation barriers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola SmallCollaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester, Centre for Primary Care, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. nicola.small@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7879-7967
Helen BrooksDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Andrew GrundySchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Research Office Medical School, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Rebecca PedleyDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Chris GibbonsCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Karina LovellDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Penny BeeDivision of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Jean McFarlane Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2014-07-028
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with severe mental illness suffer more physical comorbidity than the general population, which can require a tailored approach to physical health care discussions within mental health care planning. Although evidence pertaining to service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning is accumulating, current understanding of how physical health is prioritised within this framework is limited. Understanding stakeholder experiences of physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and the key domains that underpin this phenomena is essential to improve quality of care. Our study aimed to explore service user, carer and professional experiences of and preferences for service user and carer involvement in physical health discussions within mental health care planning, and develop a conceptual framework of effective user-led involvement in this aspect of service provision.

methodsSix focus groups and four telephone interviews were carried out with twelve service users, nine carers, three service users with a dual service user and carer role, and ten mental health professionals recruited from one mental health Trust in the United Kingdom. Data was analysed utilising a thematic approach, analysed separately for each stakeholder group, and combined to aid comparisons.

resultsNo service users or carers recalled being explicitly involved in physical health discussions within mental health care planning. Six prerequisites for effective service user and carer involvement in physical care planning were identified. Three themes confirmed general mental health care planning requirements: tailoring a collaborative working relationship, maintaining a trusting relationship with a professional, and having access to and being able to edit a living document. Three themes were novel to feeling involved in physical health care planning discussions: valuing physical health equally with mental health; experiencing coordination of care between physical-mental health professionals, and having a physical health discussion that is personalised.

conclusionsHigh quality physical health care discussions within the care planning process demands action at multiple levels. A conceptual framework is presented which provides an evidence-based foundation for service level improvement. Further work is necessary to develop a new patient reported outcome measure to enable meaningful quantification of health care quality and patient experience.

Indexed as

CaregiversMental Health ServicesPatient Care PlanningCooperative BehaviorFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMental DisordersPatient ParticipationQuality of Health CareUnited KingdomCare planningCarersHealth outcomesMental health servicesPatients’ perspectivesPhysical healthQualitative researchService user involvementSevere mental illness

Identifiers

PMID28407746
PMCPMC5390472
OpenAlexW2605432981

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.