ArticlePreventive medicine reports2020
Uptake of a preventive care consultation offered to clients of a community mental health service.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A needs assessment for self-management services for adults awaiting community-based mental health services.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The Effectiveness and Cost of an Intervention to Increase the Provision of Preventive Care in Community Mental Health Services: Protocol for a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preventive care to address client chronic disease risks is not frequently provided in community mental health services. Offering clients an additional preventive care consultation has been shown to increase client receipt of such care. The ability of this approach to have a beneficial impact at the population level is however dependent on its level of acceptability and uptake among clients. No studies have previously reported these outcomes when the additional consultation is universally offered to all clients of a community mental health service. To address this evidence gap, this descriptive study was undertaken to determine community mental health clients' (1) reported acceptability, in principle, of such a model of care, (2) of those who were offered the additional consultation, the level of uptake, and (3) clinical and socio-demographic characteristics associated with uptake. Participants were clients of one community mental health service in Australia. Data were collected in 2017 by telephone interviews and study records. Data from three distinct participant sub-groups are reported. In response to a hypothetical question, 79.3% of participants (
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.