Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28596866›Full record

ReviewGlobal mental health (Cambridge, England)2015

Intersectoral policy for severe and persistent mental illness: review of approaches in a sample of high-income countries.

S Diminic, G Carstensen, M G Harris, N Reavley, J Pirkis, C Meurk, I Wong, B Bassilios, H A Whiteford

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global mental health (Cambridge, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

S DiminicQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
G CarstensenQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
M G HarrisQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
N ReavleyMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
J PirkisMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
C MeurkQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
I WongQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.
B BassiliosMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
H A WhitefordQueensland Centre for Mental Health Research, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is increasingly recognised that intersectoral linkages between mental health and other health and support sectors are essential for providing effective care for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness. The extent to which intersectoral collaboration and approaches to achieve it are detailed in mental health policy has not yet been systematically examined.

methodsThirty-eight mental health policy documents from 22 jurisdictions in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada were identified via a web search. Information was extracted and synthesised on: the extent to which intersectoral collaboration was an objective or guiding principle of policy; the sectors acknowledged as targets for collaboration; and the characteristics of detailed intersectoral collaboration efforts.

resultsRecurring themes in objectives/guiding principles included a whole of government approach, coordination and integration of services, and increased social and economic participation. All jurisdictions acknowledged the importance of intersectoral collaboration, particularly with employment, education, housing, community, criminal justice, drug and alcohol, physical health, Indigenous, disability, emergency and aged care services. However, the level of detail provided varied widely. Where detailed strategies were described, the most common linkage mechanisms were joint service planning through intersectoral coordinating committees or liaison workers, interagency agreements, staff training and joint service provision.

conclusionsSectors and mechanisms identified for collaboration were largely consistent across jurisdictions. Little information was provided about strategies for accountability, resourcing, monitoring and evaluation of intersectoral collaboration initiatives, highlighting an area for further improvement. Examples of collaboration detailed in the policies provide a useful resource for other countries.

Indexed as

Intersectoralmental health policymental health servicessevere and persistent mental illnesswhole of government

Identifiers

PMID28596866
PMCPMC5269620

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.