MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160454757 · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-66

Building effective service linkages in primary mental health care: a narrative review part 2

2011· review· en· W2160454757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Fuller, David Perkins, Sharon Parker, Louise Holdsworth, Brian Kelly, Russell Roberts, Lee Martinez, Lyn Fragar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian GovernmentAustralian Primary Health Care Research Institute, Australian National UniversityPrimary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development
KeywordsMental healthHealth administrationNursing researchGeneral partnershipNursingMedicineCLARITYHealth informaticsThematic analysisHealth services researchService (business)Health careQualitative researchPublic healthMedical educationPsychiatrySociologyPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Primary care services have not generally been effective in meeting mental health care needs. There is evidence that collaboration between primary care and specialist mental health services can improve clinical and organisational outcomes. It is not clear however what factors enable or hinder effective collaboration. The objective of this study was to examine the factors that enable effective collaboration between specialist mental health services and primary mental health care. METHODS: A narrative and thematic review of English language papers published between 1998 and 2009. An expert reference group helped formulate strategies for policy makers. Studies of descriptive and qualitative design from Australia, New Zealand, UK, Europe, USA and Canada were included. Data were extracted on factors reported as enablers or barriers to development of service linkages. These were tabulated by theme at clinical and organisational levels and the inter-relationship between themes was explored. RESULTS: A thematic analysis of 30 papers found the most frequently cited group of factors was "partnership formation", specifically role clarity between health care workers. Other factor groups supporting clinical partnership formation were staff support, clinician attributes, clinic physical features and evaluation and feedback. At the organisational level a supportive institutional environment of leadership and change management was important. The expert reference group then proposed strategies for collaboration that would be seen as important, acceptable and feasible. Because of the variability of study types we did not exclude on quality and findings are weighted by the number of studies. Variability in local service contexts limits the generalisation of findings. CONCLUSION: The findings provide a framework for health planners to develop effective service linkages in primary mental health care. Our expert reference group proposed five areas of strategy for policy makers that address organisational level support, joint clinical problem solving, local joint care guidelines, staff training and supervision and feedback.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.348
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations52
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services ResearchSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207