Trial reportBMC psychiatry2019
Refining a model of collaborative care for people with a diagnosis of bipolar, schizophrenia or other psychoses in England: a qualitative formative evaluation.
Trial report in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Service Users With Serious Mental Illnesses: State of the Science and Future Directions.Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) · 2021Pooled it
- The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science · 2023Trial
- Primary care patients' experiences of video consultations for depression and anxiety: a qualitative interview study embedded in a randomized feasibility trial.BMC health services research · 2023Trial
- A Randomized, Controlled Trial Exploring Collaborative Nursing Intervention on Self-Care Ability and Blood Glucose of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Disease markers · 2022Trial
- Implementation of the PARTNERS model of care within two UK community mental health transformation systems: a qualitative realist evaluation.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review on Toxidromes in the Psychiatric Population: Implications for Overdose Prevention.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Community-based Collaborative Care for Serious Mental Illness: A Rapid Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Health Care Providers' Experiences and Perspectives.Community mental health journal · 2025Review
- Discharge from secondary care services to primary care for adults with serious mental illness: a scoping review.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Realist assessment of fidelity during the implementation of the PARTNERS collaborative care intervention for people with diagnoses of severe mental illness within a cluster randomised controlled trial.PLOS mental health · 2024Article
- Efficacy of behavioural activation in the treatment of negative symptoms in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: A systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2023Review
- Establishing a Care Continuum for Cardiometabolic Conditions for Patients with Serious Mental Illness.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
- The introduction of advanced practice physiotherapy within Dutch primary care is a quest for possibilities, added value, and mutual trust: a qualitative study amongst advanced practice physiotherapists and general practitioners.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The role of trust and hope in antipsychotic medication reviews between GPs and service users a realist review.BMC psychiatry · 2021Review
- Article
- Experiences of barriers to trans-sectoral treatment of patients with severe mental illness. A qualitative study.International journal of mental health systems · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory.
methodsThe PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy.
resultsKey components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected.
conclusionsAdditional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial.
trial registrationISRCTN95702682 , 26 October 2017.
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.