Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36085063›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Adapting a social network intervention for use in secondary mental health services using a collaborative approach with service users, carers/supporters and health professionals in the United Kingdom.

Helen Brooks, Angela Devereux-Fitzgerald, Laura Richmond, Neil Caton, Alice Newton, James Downs, Karina Lovell, Penny Bee, Mary Gemma Cherry, Bridget Young and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
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 6 institutions in 1 country.

Helen BrooksMental Health Research Group, Jean McFarlane Building, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. helen.brooks@manchester.ac.uk.
Angela Devereux-FitzgeraldMental Health Research Group, Jean McFarlane Building, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Laura RichmondMental Health Research Group, Jean McFarlane Building, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Neil CatonPatient and Public Involvement Contributor, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Alice Newton *Patient and Public Involvement Contributor, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
James Downs *Patient and Public Involvement Contributor, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Karina LovellMental Health Research Group, Jean McFarlane Building, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Penny BeeMental Health Research Group, Jean McFarlane Building, Division of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Mary Gemma CherryDepartment of Primary Care and Mental Health, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Bridget YoungDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Ivaylo VassilevFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Clare RotheramThe Life Rooms, Merseycare Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Anne RogersFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Manchester · GBUniversity of Southampton · GBAintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBGreater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust · GBManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Research for Patient Benefit Programme PB-PG-0418-20011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSocial integration, shared decision-making and personalised care are key elements of mental health and social care policy. Although these elements have been shown to improve service user and service-level outcomes, their translation into practice has been inconsistent and social isolation amongst service users persists.

aimTo co-adapt, with service users, carers/supporters and health professionals, a web-based social network intervention, GENIE™, for use in secondary mental health services. The intervention is designed to support social activity and preference discussions between mental healthcare professionals and service users as a means of connecting individuals to local resources.

methodsIn Phase 1 (LEARN), we completed two systematic reviews to synthesise the existing evidence relating to the i) effectiveness and ii) the implementation of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties. We undertook semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 15 stakeholders previously involved in the implementation of the intervention in physical healthcare settings. Interviews were also conducted with 5 national key stakeholders in mental health (e.g., policy makers, commissioners, third sector leads) to explore wider implementation issues. In Phase 2 (ADAPT), we worked iteratively with eight service users, nine carers, six professionals/volunteers and our patient and public advisory group. We drew on a framework for experience-based co-design, consisting of a series of stakeholder consultation events, to discuss the use of the social network intervention, in mental health services. Participants also considered factors that could serve as enablers, barriers, and challenges to local implementation.

resultsAcross the stakeholder groups there was broad agreement that the social network intervention had potential to be useful within mental health services. In terms of appropriate and effective implementation, such an intervention was predicted to work best within the care planning process, on discharge from hospital and within early intervention services. There were indications that the social connection mapping and needs assessment components were of most value and feasible to implement which points to the potential utility of a simplified version compared to the one used in this study. The training provided to facilitators was considered to be more important than their profession and there were indications that service users should be offered the opportunity to invite a carer, friend, or family member to join them in the intervention.

conclusionThe GENIE™ intervention has been co-adapted for use in mental health services and a plan for optimal implementation has been co-produced. The next phase of the programme of work is to design and implement a randomised controlled trial to evaluate clinical and cost effectiveness of a simplified version of the intervention.

Indexed as

CaregiversMental Health ServicesHealth PersonnelHumansSocial NetworkingUnited KingdomCo-adaptationImplementationMental healthPatient and public involvementSocial networks

Identifiers

PMID36085063
PMCPMC9461266
OpenAlexW4295008851

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.