Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33785568›Full record

ArticleBJGP open2021

Evaluation of a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS2) for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychoses: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Humera Plappert, Charley Hobson-Merrett, Bliss Gibbons, Elina Baker, Sheridan Bevan, Michael Clark, Siobhan Creanor, Linda Davies, Rebecca Denyer, Julia Frost and 18 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJGP open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
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

28 authors at 14 institutions in 3 countries.

Humera PlappertSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK h.plappert@bham.ac.uk.
Charley Hobson-MerrettCommunity and Primary Care Research Group- Faculty of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Bliss GibbonsCoventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust, Coventry, UK.
Elina BakerInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Sheridan BevanBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Birmingham University, Birmingham, UK.
Michael ClarkLondon School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Siobhan CreanorExeter Clinical Trials Unit, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Linda DaviesDivision of Population Health - Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Rebecca DenyerSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Julia FrostInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Linda GaskPsychiatry, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
John GibsonMcPin Foundation, London, UK.
Laura GillCommunity and Primary Care Research Group- Faculty of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Ruth Gwernan-JonesInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Pollyanna HardyBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Birmingham University, Birmingham, UK.
Joanne HoskingCommunity and Primary Care Research Group- Faculty of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Peter HuxleySchool of Health Sciences, Bangor University, UK.
Alison JeffreyPeninsula Clinical Trials Unit, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Benjamin JonesExeter Clinical Trials Unit, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Steven MarwahaSchool of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Vanessa PinoldMcPin Foundation, London, UK.
Claire PlannerDivision of Population Health - Health Services Research & Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Tim RawcliffeLancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK.
Siobhan ReillyFaculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK.
Debra RichardsCommunity and Primary Care Research Group- Faculty of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Lynsey WilliamsCommunity and Primary Care Research Group- Faculty of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Max BirchwoodWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Richard ByngCommunity and Primary Care Research Group- Faculty of Medicine, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Community Care · USUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GBMcPin Foundation · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBBangor University · GBCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit · GBCoventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust · GBLancashire Care NHS Foundation Trust · GBLondon School of Economics and Political Science · GBPrimary Health Care · QAUniversity of Bradford · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting.

aimThe trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. DESIGN &

settingThis is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control').

methodPARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic.

conclusionThe overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.

Indexed as

Bipolar DisorderCollaborative CareProtocolPsychotic DisordersRandomized Controlled TrialSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID33785568
PMCPMC8278501
OpenAlexW3147555194

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.