Randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse‐delivered interventions: A systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
WHAT IS KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT?: Well conducted randomized controlled trials provide the highest level of evidence of effectiveness of healthcare interventions, including those delivered by mental health nurses. Trials have been conducted over the years but there has not been a comprehensive review since 2005, and never one including studies conducted outside the UK. WHAT THE PAPER ADDS TO EXISTING KNOWLEDGE?: The paper provides a comprehensive overview of results from randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse-delivered interventions conducted in the UK, Ireland, US, Australia, New Zealand, or Canada and reported 2005 to 2020. It highlights that the trial evidence is limited and offers only partial evidence for interventions that are central to mental health nursing practice. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE?: Much mental health nursing practice is not supported by the highest level trial evidence. Mental health nurses need to carefully select evidence on which to base their practice both from the mental health nursing literature and beyond. Mental health nurses and other stakeholders should demand greater investment in trials to strengthen the evidence base. ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Nurses are the largest professional disciplinary group working in mental health services and have been involved in numerous trials of nursing-specific and multidisciplinary interventions. Systematic appraisal of relevant research findings is rare. AIM: To review trials from the core Anglosphere (UK, US, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand) published from 2005 to 2020. METHOD: A systematic review reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. Comprehensive electronic database searches were conducted. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of mental health nurse-delivered interventions conducted in relevant countries. The risk of bias was independently assessed. Synthesis involved integration of descriptive statistics of standardized metrics and study bias. RESULTS: Outcomes from 348 between-group comparisons were extracted from K = 51 studies (N = 11,266 participants), Standardized effect sizes for 68 (39 very small/small, 29 moderate/large) statistically significant outcomes from 30 studies were calculable. All moderate/large effect sizes were at risk of bias. DISCUSSION: Trial evidence of effective mental health nurse-delivered interventions is limited. Many studies produced few or no measurable benefits; none demonstrated improvements related to personal recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mental health nurses should look beyond gold standard RCT evidence, and to evidence-based interventions that have not been trialled with mental health nurse delivery.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,060 | 0,226 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,020 | 0,017 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».