MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135047402 · doi:10.1071/ah11008

Controlled clinical trial of a self-management program for people with mental illness in an adult mental health service – the Optimal Health Program (OHP)

2012· article· en· W2135047402 on OpenAlexaff
Monica M. Gilbert, James A. Chamberlain, Carolynne White, Paul Mayers, Brendan Pawsey, Danny Liew, M. Musgrave, Kerry F. Crawford, David Castle

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Health Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsManning Diversified Forest Products (Canada)
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMental healthMedicinePopulation healthHealth economicsHealth carePublic healthGerontologyFamily medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect and cost-effectiveness of a self-management intervention, delivered as part of routine care in an adult mental health service. Method. In a community mental health setting, routine care was compared with routine care plus a nine-session intervention (the Optimal Health Program) using a non-randomised controlled design. Adult (18–65 years) consumers of mental health services in the Australian Capital Territory were eligible for participation. Results. The Optimal Health Program was associated with significant improvements in health and social functioning as measured by the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (average change relative to control: –3.17; 95% CI –4.49 to –1.84; P < 0.001). In addition, there was a reduction in hospital admissions in the treatment group (percentage of time in hospital reduced from 3.20 to 0.82; P = 0.07). This translated into a net cost saving of over AU$6000 per participant per year (uncertainty range AU$744 to AU$12 656). Conclusions. This study shows promising results for incorporating a self-management program into routine care to improve the health and social functioning of mental health consumers in a cost-effective manner. What is known about the topic? Current literature supports the efficacy of structured self-management programs for chronic conditions such as diabetes (type 1 and 2) and asthma, but there remains limited evidence that self-management programs improve outcomes for people with mental illness. What does this paper add? This study adds to the body of evidence supporting self-management as a cost-effective adjunct to routine care in mental health services. What are the implications for practitioners? Our study supports the feasibility of clinicians delivering cost-effective self-management programs as part of routine mental health service delivery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.404 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Health ReviewSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207