Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798651›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2023

Introducing extended consultations for patients with severe mental illness in general practice: Results from the SOFIA feasibility study.

A B R Jønsson, F H J Martiny, M K Søndergaard, J B Brodersen, T D Due, M H Nielsen, C Bakkedal, J E Bardram, K Bissenbakker, I Christensen and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

A B R Jønsson *The Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
F H J Martiny *The Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. fhm@sund.ku.dk.
M K SøndergaardThe Research Unit for General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
J B BrodersenThe Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
T D DueThe Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M H NielsenThe Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
C BakkedalThe Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
J E BardramDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
K BissenbakkerThe Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
I ChristensenThe Danish Centre for Social Science Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
K DohertyDepartment of Health Technology, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
P KjellbergThe Danish Centre for Social Science Research, Copenhagen, Denmark.
S W MercerUsher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Denmark.
S ReventlowThe Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M P Rozing *The Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
A Møller *The Section of General Practice and Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKDanish National Centre for Social Research · DKTechnical University of Denmark · DKUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with a severe mental illness (SMI) have shorter life expectancy and poorer quality of life compared to the general population. Most years lost are due to cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and various types of cancer. We co-designed an intervention to mitigate this health problem with key stakeholders in the area, which centred on an extended consultations for people with SMI in general practice. This study aimed to1) investigate general practitioners' (GPs) experience of the feasibility of introducing extended consultations for patients with SMI, 2) assess the clinical content of extended consultations and how these were experienced by patients, and 3) investigate the feasibility of identification, eligibility screening, and recruitment of patients with SMI.

methodsThe study was a one-armed feasibility study. We planned that seven general practices in northern Denmark would introduce extended consultations with their patients with SMI for 6 months. Patients with SMI were identified using practice medical records and screened for eligibility by the patients' GP. Data were collected using case report forms filled out by practice personnel and via qualitative methods, including observations of consultations, individual semi-structured interviews, a focus group with GPs, and informal conversations with patients and general practice staff.

resultsFive general practices employing seven GPs participated in the study, which was terminated 3 ½ month ahead of schedule due to the COVID-19 pandemic. General practices attempted to contact 57 patients with SMI. Of these, 38 patients (67%) attended an extended consultation, which led to changes in the somatic health care plan for 82% of patients. Conduct of the extended consultations varied between GPs and diverged from the intended conduct. Nonetheless, GPs found the extended consultations feasible and, in most cases, beneficial for the patient group. In interviews, most patients recounted the extended consultation as beneficial. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that it is feasible to introduce extended consultations for patients with SMI in general practice, which were also found to be well-suited for eliciting patients' values and preferences. Larger studies with a longer follow-up period could help to assess the long-term effects and the best implementation strategies of these consultations.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeMental DisordersFeasibility StudiesHumansPandemicsQuality of LifeReferral and ConsultationExtended consultationsFeasibility studiesGeneral practicePatient-centred carePrimary careQualitative methodsSevere mental illness

Identifiers

PMID37798651
PMCPMC10552249
OpenAlexW4387374388

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.