Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511900›Full record

ReviewPloS one2022

Clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice in community services for people with complex emotional needs: A qualitative thematic meta-synthesis.

Jordan Troup, Billie Lever Taylor, Luke Sheridan Rains, Eva Broeckelmann, Jessica Russell, Tamar Jeynes, Chris Cooper, Thomas Steare, Zainab Dedat, Shirley McNicholas and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jordan TroupHealth Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Billie Lever TaylorDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, England.ORCID 0000-0002-6865-3425
Luke Sheridan RainsDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, England.ORCID 0000-0003-4905-4168
Eva BroeckelmannHealth Service and Population Research Department, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Complex Emotional Needs Lived Experience Working Group, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Jessica RussellHealth Service and Population Research Department, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Complex Emotional Needs Lived Experience Working Group, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Tamar JeynesHealth Service and Population Research Department, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit Complex Emotional Needs Lived Experience Working Group, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Chris CooperDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, England.
Thomas SteareDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, England.
Zainab DedatDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, England.
Shirley McNicholasCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust, London, England.
Sian OramHealth Service and Population Research Department, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, England.
Oliver DaleWest London Mental Health Trust, London, England.ORCID 0000-0002-2724-4326
Sonia JohnsonDivision of Psychiatry, NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, England.
King's College London · GBMental Health Research UK · GBUniversity College London · GBCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust · GBWest London Mental Health NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe need to improve the quality of community mental health services for people with Complex Emotional Needs (CEN) (who may have a diagnosis of 'personality disorder') is recognised internationally and has become a renewed policy priority in England. Such improvement requires positive engagement from clinicians across the service system, and their perspectives on achieving good practice need to be understood.

aimTo synthesise qualitative evidence on clinician perspectives on what constitutes good practice, and what helps or prevents it being achieved, in community mental health services for people with CEN.

methodsSix bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since 2003 and supplementary citation tracking was conducted. Studies that used any recognised qualitative method and reported clinician experiences and perspectives on community-based mental health services for adults with CEN were eligible for this review, including generic and specialist settings. Meta-synthesis was used to generate and synthesise over-arching themes across included studies.

resultsTwenty-nine papers were eligible for inclusion, most with samples given a 'personality disorder' diagnosis. Six over-arching themes were identified: 1. The use and misuse of diagnosis; 2. The patient journey into services: nowhere to go; 3. Therapeutic relationships: connection and distance; 4. The nature of treatment: not doing too much or too little; 5. Managing safety issues and crises: being measured and proactive; 6. Clinician and wider service needs: whose needs are they anyway? The overall quality of the evidence was moderate. DISCUSSION: Through summarising the literature on clinician perspectives on good practice for people with CEN, over-arching priorities were identified on which there appears to be substantial consensus. In their focus on needs such as for a long-term perspective on treatment journeys, high quality and consistent therapeutic relationships, and a balanced approach to safety, clinician priorities are mainly congruent with those found in studies on service user views. They also identify clinician needs that should be met for good care to be provided, including for supervision, joint working and organisational support.

Indexed as

Community Mental Health ServicesAdultEnglandHumansPersonality DisordersSocial Welfare

Identifiers

PMID35511900
PMCPMC9070883
OpenAlexW4229030120

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.