Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37875610›Full record

SynthesisSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2024

The therapeutic relationship in community mental health services: a systematic review of the literature.

Mattia Marchi, Giulia Venturi, Chiara Visentini, Margherita Pinelli, Stefan Priebe, Gian Maria Galeazzi

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Burnout, working alliance, and ward atmosphere: A multisite study of mental health professionals and patients with schizophrenia.Stress and health : journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress · 2024
    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

6 authors.

Mattia MarchiDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2970-1276
Giulia VenturiDipartimento ad Attività Integrata di Salute Mentale e Dipendenze Patologiche, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Via Giovanni Amendola 2, 42122, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Chiara VisentiniDepartment of Mental Health and Drug Abuse, AUSL Modena, Modena, Italy.
Margherita PinelliDipartimento ad Attività Integrata di Salute Mentale e Dipendenze Patologiche, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Via Giovanni Amendola 2, 42122, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Stefan PriebeEast London NHS Foundation, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9864-3394
Gian Maria GaleazziDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. gianmaria.galeazzi@unimore.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2706-3362

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic review aimed to investigate the therapeutic relationship (TR) between mental health professionals (MHPs) and their patients in community mental health services (CMHS).

methodsPubMed (Medline), PsycINFO, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science were searched for studies that assessed TR in CMHS using quantitative measures developed specifically for this setting (i.e., Helping Alliance Scale [HAS] and the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship [STAR]). Studies were included if they considered adult patients with a psychiatric disorder and/or any MHP working in CMHS. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis assessed the association between patients' and MHPs' ratings and identified predictors of TR.

resultsOf 1934 studies, 15 were included in the review, including 3004 patients. A total of 1127 patients and 963 MHPs were considered in the meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the studies was high, and there was no significant difference between the patients' and MHPs' TR ratings in the random-effects model (standardized mean difference [SMD]: - 0.39 [95% CI: - 1.03; 0.24]). In the multivariable meta-regression, only duration of illness was significantly associated with TR ratings (unstandardized regression coefficient [B]: 0.388 [95% CI: 0.217; 0.558]). A recovery-oriented service, shared decision-making, and the recognition of patient needs contributed to more positive TR ratings.

conclusionPatients and MHPs converged in their TR ratings, although patients gave lower ratings. Routine assessment of TR in CMHS can inform reflective practice and service development, as TR can be assessed easily and early in the treatment process. Future research should focus on developing and testing interventions to improve TR in CMHS.

Indexed as

Community Mental Health ServicesMental DisordersHumansProfessional-Patient RelationsCommunity psychiatryMental healthMental health professionalMental health servicesMeta-analysisTherapeutic relationship

Identifiers

PMID37875610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.