Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31481057›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2019

"It's a matter of building bridges…" - feasibility of a carer involvement intervention for inpatients with severe mental illness.

Justina Kaselionyte, Maev Conneely, Domenico Giacco

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Family-centered collaborative care for patients with chronic mental illness: A systematic review.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 'Triadic' shared decision making in mental health: Experiences and expectations of service users, caregivers and clinicians in Germany.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Justina KaselionyteUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, (WHO Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, Glen Road, London, E13 8SP, UK. justinakaselionyte@yahoo.co.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5628-0908
Maev ConneelyUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, (WHO Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, Glen Road, London, E13 8SP, UK.
Domenico GiaccoUnit for Social and Community Psychiatry, (WHO Centre for Mental Health Service Development), Queen Mary University of London, Glen Road, London, E13 8SP, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFamily and friends (carer) involvement in the treatment of people with mental illness is widely recommended. However, the implementation remains poor, especially during hospital treatment, where carers report being excluded from care decisions.

methodsWe developed structured clinical procedures to maximise carer involvement in inpatient treatment. The aim of this study was to test their feasibility across four inpatient wards in East London and explore experiences of the participants. The intervention was delivered by clinicians (social therapists, nurses and psychiatrists) who were trained by the research team. Thirty patients and thirty carers received the intervention and completed research assessments and qualitative interviews after the intervention. 80% of the patients were followed up after six weeks of admission to complete quantitative questionnaires. Six clinicians were interviewed to explore their views on the intervention. Thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data.

resultsThe intervention was found to be feasible to be delivered within the first week of admission in more than a half of the patients (53%) who provided consent. The main reasons why the interventions was not delivered in the remaining 47% of patients included staff or carers not being available, withdrawal of consent from the patient or patient being discharged prior to the intervention. Two themes were identified through thematic analysis. The first captured participant experiences of the intervention as facilitating a three-way collaborative approach to treatment. The second covered how patients' mental states and practicalities of inpatient care acted as barriers and facilitators to the intervention being implemented.

conclusionsCarer involvement in hospital treatment for mental illness is more difficult to implement than is commonly thought. This study has shown that a simple structured approach can facilitate a trialogue and that patients, clinicians and carers appreciate this approach to care. Our intervention provides clear and simple manualised clinical procedures that clinicians can follow. However, even the implementation of such procedures may be challenging in the absence of wider organisational support. The involvement of senior managers and clinical leaders might play a key role in overcoming barriers and support front-line clinicians to prioritise and implement carer involvement.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAdultAgedCaregiversFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansInpatientsLondonMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPatient DischargeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCarersFamilyFriendsInpatient carePsychosisSevere mental disorders

Identifiers

PMID31481057
PMCPMC6721093
OpenAlexW2971603913

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.