Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30885186›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Healthcare ecosystems research in mental health: a scoping review of methods to describe the context of local care delivery.

Mary Anne Furst, Coralie Gandré, Cristina Romero López-Alberca, Luis Salvador-Carulla

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Mary Anne FurstCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, 63 Eggleston Rd Acton ACT, Canberra, 2601, Australia. Mary.Furst@anu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1906-2346
Coralie GandréURC-Eco Ile-de-France, F-75004, Paris, France.
Cristina Romero López-AlbercaDepartament of Psychology, University of Cádiz, Cádiz, Spain.
Luis Salvador-CarullaCentre for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, ANU College of Health and Medicine, Australian National University, 63 Eggleston Rd Acton ACT, Canberra, 2601, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEvidence from the context of local health ecosystems is highly relevant for research and policymaking to understand geographical variations in outcomes of health care delivery. In mental health systems, the analysis of context presents particular challenges related to their complexity and to methodological difficulties. Method guidelines and standard recommendations for conducting context analysis of local mental health care are urgently needed. This scoping study reviews current methods of context analysis in mental health systems to establish the parameters of research activity examining availability and capacity of care at the local level, and to identify any gaps in the literature.

methodsA scoping review based on a systematic search of key databases was conducted for the period 2005-2016. A systems dynamics/complexity approach was adopted, using a modified version of Tansella and Thornicroft's matrix model of mental health care as the conceptual framework for our analysis.

resultsThe lack of a specific terminology in the area meant that from 10,911 titles identified at the initial search, only 46 papers met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 had serious methodological limitations. Fifteen papers did not use any kind of formal framework, and five of those did not describe their method. Units of analysis varied widely and across different levels of the system. Six instruments to describe service availability and capacity were identified, of which three had been psychometrically validated. A limitation was the exclusion of grey literature from the review. However, the imprecise nature of the terminology, and high number of initial results, makes the inclusion of grey literature not feasible.

conclusionWe identified that, in spite of its relevance, context studies in mental health services is a very limited research area. Few validated instruments are available. Methodological limitations in many papers mean that the particular challenges of mental health systems research such as system complexity, data availability and terminological variability are generally poorly addressed, presenting a barrier to valid system comparison. The modified Thornicroft and Tansella matrix and related ecological production of care model provide the main model for research within the area of health care ecosystems.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchMental HealthMental Health ServicesHumansMental health care comparisonMental health care deliveryMental health care systemsMental health systems research

Identifiers

PMID30885186
PMCPMC6423877

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.