Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37779607›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2023

Community-based models of care facilitating the recovery of people living with persistent and complex mental health needs: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Carol Harvey, Tessa-May Zirnsak, Catherine Brasier, Priscilla Ennals, Justine Fletcher, Bridget Hamilton, Helen Killaspy, Peter McKenzie, Hamilton Kennedy, Lisa Brophy

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Carol HarveyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tessa-May ZirnsakSocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Catherine BrasierSocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Priscilla EnnalsNeami National, Preston, VIC, Australia.
Justine FletcherCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Bridget HamiltonCentre for Mental Health Nursing, Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Helen KillaspyDepartment of Epidemiology and Applied Clinical Research, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter McKenzieThe Bouverie Centre, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Brunswick, VIC, Australia.
Hamilton KennedyCentre for Mental Health Nursing, Department of Nursing, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Lisa BrophySocial Work and Social Policy, Department of Community and Clinical Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of community-based models of care (MoCs) supporting the recovery of individuals who experience persistent and complex mental health needs. Method: We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis of MoC studies reporting clinical, functional, or personal recovery from October 2016 to October 2021. Sources were Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. Studies were grouped according to MoC features. The narrative synthesis was led by our researchers with lived experience. Results: Beneficial MoCs ranged from well-established to novel and updated models and those explicitly addressing recovery goals and incorporating peer support: Conclusion: Evidence for established models of care shows that there is a need for inevitable evolution and adaptation. Considering the high importance of effective MoCs for people experiencing persistent and complex mental health needs, further attention to service innovation and research is required. Greater emphasis on the inclusion of lived and living experience in the design, delivery, implementation, and research of MoCs is needed, to enhance MOCs' relevance for achieving individual consumer recovery outcomes.

Indexed as

communitycomplexmental illnessmodels of carerecovery

Identifiers

PMID37779607
PMCPMC10539575

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.