Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41953576›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in health services2026

Supporting complex mental health care and services research today and beyond: a mini-review of real-world evidence strategies and informed approaches.

Rachele M Hendricks-Sturrup, Fraser W Gaspar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Rachele M Hendricks-SturrupDuke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Institute for Health Policy, Washington, DC, United States.
Fraser W GasparThe MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global mental health needs are escalating, yet few people with mental disorders receive effective care, underscoring the need for robust real-world evidence (RWE) to guide system transformation. Real-world data (RWD)-such as electronic records, claims, patient-reported outcomes, and digital sources-can capture the complexity of mental health care delivery beyond trials but remain underused. In this mini-review, we discuss methodological and infrastructural priorities for leveraging RWD to improve mental health services research and care. We describe recent peer-reviewed studies that have used RWD to examine complex mental health care and associated outcomes, focusing on applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) and on approaches that enhance validity and reproducibility. Many recent studies report the use of AI/ML to identify study populations, extract unstructured clinical information, or predict treatment patterns, while others report the use of RWD to characterize trajectories, service use, and costs. Building on these examples, we propose two urgent actions: (1) adopt relevant, reliable, and routine RWD curation, transformation, and analysis strategies-including target trial emulation for causal inference-and (2) strengthen mental health care data systems through standardization, harmonization, and interoperability. To promote transparency, we highlight protocol and reporting tools (e.g., HARPER, ATRAcTR, TARGET) and recommend registration of RWE studies. Collectively, these advances can enable high-quality, patient-centered RWE that better reflects real-world mental health care and informs more equitable, effective services.

Indexed as

complex caremental healthpsychiatryreal-world datareal-world evidence

Identifiers

PMID41953576
PMCPMC13055558

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.