Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29162112›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Continuity of care as experienced by mental health service users - a qualitative study.

Eva Biringer, Miriam Hartveit, Bengt Sundfør, Torleif Ruud, Marit Borg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. General practice at the frontline of preventing suicide.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    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

5 authors.

Eva BiringerHelse Fonna Local Health Authority, P.O. Box 2170, N-5504, Haugesund, Norway. eva.biringer@helse-fonna.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0933-1079
Miriam HartveitHelse Fonna Local Health Authority, P.O. Box 2170, N-5504, Haugesund, Norway.
Bengt SundførRegional Research Network on Mood Disorders (MoodNet), Haukeland University Hospital, Division of Mental Health, P.O. Box 1400, N-5021, Bergen, Norway.
Torleif RuudDivision of Mental Health Services, Akershus University Hospital, P.O. Box 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway.
Marit BorgFaculty of Health Sciences, University College of Southeast Norway, Papirbredden, Drammen kunnskapspark, Grønland 58, 3045, Drammen, Norway.

Funding

Norwegian Extra Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation/Norwegian Council for Mental Health 2010/2/0299
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople who struggle with mental health problems can provide valuable insight into understanding and improving the coordination of mental health and welfare services. The aims of the study were to explore service users' experiences and perceptions of continuity of care within and across services relevant to personal recovery, to elicit which dimensions of continuity of care are most essential to service users, and to generate ideas for improving service users' experiences of continuity of care.

methodsIn the context of a hermeneutic-phenomenological approach, ten service users at a community mental health centre were interviewed about their experiences of continuity of care in and across services. Eight of these were re-interviewed two years later. A collaborative research approach was adopted. Data were analysed by means of a data-driven stepwise approach in line with thematic analysis.

resultsFollowing the analysis five themes representing experiences of continuity of care were developed. Each theme ranged from poor to good experiences of continuity of care: Relationship - from experiencing frequent setbacks and anxiety due to breaks in relationships, to feeling safe in an ongoing personal relationship; Timeliness - from experiencing frustrating waiting times with worsening of problems, to getting help when needed; Mutuality - from having a one-sided struggle, to a situation in which both professionals and service users take initiatives; Choice - from not having the opportunity to make practical arrangements within the context of one's everyday life, to having an array of support options to choose from; Knowledge - from feeling confused and insecure because one does not know what is happening, to feeling safe because one is informed about what is going to happen. Participants provided a range of suggestions for improving experiences of continuity of care.

conclusionsA discrepancy between aspects of continuity that are essential for service users and their experiences of actual practice was revealed. The valid evidence generated in the present collaborative study therefore offers knowledge to policy makers, professionals and service users that may be of help in their future efforts in orienting primary care, mental health, addiction and welfare services towards recovery.

Indexed as

Community Mental Health CentersContinuity of Patient CareMental Health ServicesFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedNorwayPatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchContinuity of careHealth care transitionInformationMental healthPatient experiencesPhysician–patient relationsQuality of health careRecoverySocial welfareTherapist change

Identifiers

PMID29162112
PMCPMC5698968

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.