ReviewGaceta sanitaria2020
[Evolution and status of the community model of mental health care. SESPAS Report 2020].
Review in Gaceta sanitaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community-Based Mental Health Promotion and Public Policy Integration: A Scoping Review (1990-2024).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Care quality from the perspective of human rights as perceived by mental health professionals in Gran Canaria: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Evaluation of primary care responsiveness by people with mental illness in Spain.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Increased Risks of Mental Disorders: Youth with Inactive Physical Activity.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prevalence of mental disorders amongst inmates receiving psychopharmacological treatment at Zuera prison.Revista espanola de sanidad penitenciariaArticle
- Self-Efficacy of the Community Health Agent, Importance of Motivation and Empowerment.Journal of primary care & community healthObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The legislative and ideological transition produced in recent years in Spain has favoured the implementation of the community model of mental health care. However, there is still strong resistance to the inclusion of community approaches in the care of people with mental health problems and to the implementation of integrated care and attention with a salutogenic approach. The purpose of the following report is to describe the evolution of the community model of mental health care in the Spanish National Health System and to assess its current status. Initially, a review of the published national mental health plans and strategies was carried out. Subsequently, the evaluation was carried out taking as reference the Consensus Document on the Fundamental Principles and Key Elements of Community Mental Health, which establishes the criteria for evaluating the quality of community care. In the absence of updated plans or strategies, international reports and recommendations were included. The results were grouped into: 1) social perspective, where the controversy about the capacity of the users to make decisions despite the recognition of their rights as autonomous moral agents is evident; 2) perspective of the centrality of the users of mental health care services, where the resistance to the implementation of integrated community care and attention is expressed; and 3) professional perspective in relation to the effectiveness of the interventions and the community network of care principles, which highlights the need to transform the institutions to carry out community interventions in mental health based on evidence and in an intersectoral, comprehensive, integrated and integrating manner.
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.