Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42789607›Full record

ArticlePLOS mental health2026

An exploration of acceptability of a collaboratively developed model of formulation.

Aneita Pringle, Jonathan Totman, Tine Van Bortel, Emma Kaminskiy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS mental health, 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

4 authors.

Aneita PringleSchool of Psychology and Sport Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6502-7325
Jonathan TotmanUniversity Counselling Service, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Tine Van BortelCambridge Public Health Interdisciplinary Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Emma KaminskiySchool of Psychology and Sport Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Collaborative, recovery-oriented psychological interventions are in demand within mental health settings, but layers of barriers can impede their implementation, particularly within acute services. Psychological formulation is a recovery-oriented, collaborative process involving the development of a shared understanding of a service user's mental health difficulties. Psychological formulation has the potential to support a shift away from the embedded medical model; however, few, if any, frameworks have involved service users at the development stage. This study examines the acceptability of a collaboratively developed model of psychological formulation, piloted with staff within a specialist inpatient setting as well as a wider sample of individuals involved in delivering or receiving mental health services. A theory-driven and collaboratively developed psychological formulation model was developed (the 'Personal Narrative Model') and acceptability was evaluated with (1) acute inpatient staff working on an adult ward, and (2) a wider sample of professionals and individuals with lived experience. A focus group (n = 7), surveys (n = 26), and interviews were conducted (n = 8) and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The formulation model demonstrated promising acceptability although it was not meaningfully implemented within the acute setting. Three overarching themes are presented from the data: 1) the value of collaborative formulation, 2) implementation barriers, and 3) 'selling' and embedding change. Although there is an appetite for more contextualised ways of viewing and supporting mental health, underlying practical, cultural, and attitudinal barriers exist. Practical recommendations are shared for future researchers or practitioners seeking to embed psychological interventions within their applied settings.

Identifiers

PMID42789607
PMCPMC13614565

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.