Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30819700›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Cluster randomised controlled trial of a guided self-help mental health intervention in primary care.

Fiona Mathieson, James Stanley, Catherine Sunny Collings, Rachel Tester, Anthony Dowell

Abstract readPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Fiona MathiesonDepartment of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
James StanleyPublic Health, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8572-1047
Catherine Sunny CollingsDeans Department, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Rachel TesterPrimary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Anthony DowellGeneral Practice, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Wellington South, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo ascertain whether an ultrabrief intervention (UBI) improves mental health outcomes for patients in general practice with mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. TRIAL

designTwo-arm cluster randomised controlled trial.

methodsParticipants: general practitioners (GPs) were invited based on working in a participating general practice. Patients were eligible to participate if aged 18-65 years, scored ≤35 on the Kessler-10 (K10) and if meeting local mental health access criteria (based on age, low income or ethnic group).

interventionsintervention arm GPs were trained on the UBI approach, with participating patients receiving three structured appointments over 5 weeks. GPs randomised to practice as usual (PAU) did not receive training, and delivered support following their existing practice approaches. OUTCOME MEASURES: primary outcome was patient-level K10 score at 6 months postrecruitment.Randomisation: GP practices were randomised to UBI training or PAU at the start of the study.Blinding: GPs were not blinded to group assignment.

resultsNumbers randomised: 62 GPs (recruiting 85 patients) were randomised to UBI, and 50 to PAU (recruiting 75 patients).Numbers analysed: 31 GPs recruited at least one patient in the UBI arm (70 patients analysed), and 21 GPs recruited at least one patient in the PAU arm (69 patients analysed). OUTCOME: K10 scores from an intention-to-treat analysis were similar in UBI and PAU arms, with a wide CI (mean adjusted K10 difference=1.68 points higher in UBI arm, 95% CI -1.18 to 4.55; p=0.255). Secondary outcomes were also similar in the two groups.

conclusionsthe UBI intervention did not lead to better outcomes than practice as usual, although the study had lower than planned power due to poor recruitment. The study results can still contribute to the continuing debate about brief psychological therapy options for primary care and their development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12613000041752; Pre-results.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedNew ZealandPrimary Health CareSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomebriefIinterventionsmental healthprimary care

Identifiers

PMID30819700
PMCPMC6398763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.