ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Psychological Screening, Standards and Spinal Cord Injury: Introducing Change in NHS England Commissioned Services.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mindfulness-based stress reduction effects on resilience, individual independence and quality of life of spinal cord injury patients: A randomized clinical trial.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2026Trial
- Understanding the Impact of Screening Location on Depressive Symptom Scores Among People With Spinal Cord Injury.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2026Article
- Anxiety and adjustment following SCI: a transdiagnostic psychological intervention combining Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Coping Effectiveness Training (CET).Spinal cord series and cases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychologist resourcing across the United Kingdom (UK) spinal cord injury centres (SCICs) varies considerably, which has detrimentally impacted standardising service provision for people with spinal cord injuries/disorders (PwSCI/D) compared with other nations. This paper presents the outcome of a project involving the Spinal Cord Injury Psychology Advisory Group (SCIPAG) and NHS England Clinical Reference Group/SCI transformation groups to agree upon screening and standards and shares data from the National Spinal Injuries Centre (NSIC) and the Yorkshire and Midlands Regional SCICs. Inpatients completed the GAD-7, the PHQ-9, and the short form of the Appraisals of DisAbility: Primary and Secondary Scale (ADAPSSsf), assessing adjustment. A total of 646 participants were included, with 43% scoring above the clinical threshold on at least one of the measures on admission. A subset of 272 participants also completed discharge measures and 42% remained above the threshold on discharge, demonstrating sustained psychological need. This paper provides support for services to move to a screen-and-assessment model supplemented by referral options for those with changing needs or who present with difficulties outside the remit of screening. The findings also support the efficacy of universal screening across the system and consideration of screening and standards for psychological care by the wider psychology community.
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.