Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33268432›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2020

Clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of individual mental health workers colocated within primary care practices: a systematic literature review.

Jean-Baptiste Woods, Geva Greenfield, Azeem Majeed, Benedict Hayhoe

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Jean-Baptiste WoodsDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7210-0719
Geva GreenfieldDepartment of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK g.greenfield@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-2486
Azeem MajeedPrimary Care, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2357-9858
Benedict HayhoeDepartment of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2645-6191

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMental health disorders contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and lead to extensive strain on health systems. The integration of mental health workers into primary care has been proposed as one possible solution, but evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness of this approach is unclear. We reviewed the clinical and cost effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

designSystematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: We searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Global Health databases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All quantitative studies published before July 2019 were eligible for the review; participants of any age and gender were included. Studies did not need to report a certain outcome measure or comparator in order to be eligible. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted using a standardised table; however, pooled analysis proved unfeasible. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

resultsFifteen studies from four countries were included. Mental health worker integration was associated with mental health benefits to varied populations, including minority groups and those with comorbid chronic diseases. Furthermore, the interventions were correlated with high patient satisfaction and increases in specialist mental health referrals among minority populations. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest clinical outcomes were significantly different from usual general practitioner care.

conclusionsWhile there appear to be some benefits associated with mental health worker integration in primary care practices, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that an onsite primary care mental health worker is significantly more clinically or cost effective when compared with usual general practitioner care. There should therefore be an increased emphasis on generating new evidence from clinical trials to better understand the benefits and effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

Indexed as

Mental HealthPrimary Health CareCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PersonnelHumansTreatment Outcomemental healthprimary carepublic health

Identifiers

PMID33268432
PMCPMC7713190

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.