ArticleBMC health services research2023
Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an early intervention in psychosis service in three demonstration sites in Ireland.
Article in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fidelity, Implementation Determinants, and Patient-Level Outcomes Following Initial Implementation of NAVIGATE in the Early Psychosis Intervention-Spreading Evidence-Based Treatment (EPI-SET) Study.Schizophrenia bulletin · 2026Article
- Implementing Coordinated Specialty Care Programs for Psychosis Across the U.S.: State-Level Administrator and Provider Perspectives.Community mental health journal · 2026Article
- Identifying Research Priorities in Early Psychosis: A Collaborative Approach to Shaping the Future of Early Psychosis Clinical Trials in Australia.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Identifying Factors Influencing the Implementation of Early Intervention Services for Psychosis in Quebec, Canada: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Providers' Perspectives.Early intervention in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProgrammes for early intervention (EIP) in psychosis for people experiencing a first episode of psychosis (FEP) have been found to be both clinically and cost effective. Following the publication of a new EIP model of care (MoC) in Ireland, the aim of this research is to describe how people participated in and responded to the MoC including service users, family members, HSE clinical staff and HSE management.
methodsQualitative design using the UK Medical Research Council's process evaluation framework. Purposive sampling techniques were used. A total of N = 40 key informant semi-structured interviews were completed which included clinical staff (N = 22), health service managers and administrators (N = 9), service users (N = 8) and a family member (N = 1). Thematic analyses were conducted.
resultsUnique features of the EIP service (e.g., speed of referral/assessment, multidisciplinary approach, a range of evidence-based interventions and assertive MDT follow up) and enthusiasm for EIP were identified as two key factors that facilitated implementation. In contrast, obstacles to staff recruitment and budget challenges emerged as two primary barriers to implementation.
conclusionsThe findings from this research provide real world insights into the complexity of implementing an innovative service within an existing health system. Clear and committed financial and human resource processes which allow new innovations to thrive and be protected during their initiation and early implementation phase are paramount. These elements should be considered in the planning and implementation of EIP services both nationally in Ireland and internationally.
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.