↓ Skip to main content

Consensus building to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness: a qualitative outcome mapping study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Consensus building to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness: a qualitative outcome mapping study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0744-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolyn Ehrlich, Elizabeth Kendall, Nicolette Frey, Michelle Denton, Steve Kisely

Abstract

The poor physical health of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is often attributed to lifestyle, disease-related medication side effects and disparate provision of healthcare. The complexity and inexact nature of this issue prohibits the identification of a clear and concise causal pathway, which in turn leads to uncertainty and imprecision about the most appropriate action to address the problem. One proposed solution is to integrate care across multiple organisations and sectors through collaborative processes. The objective of this study was to identify collective pathways of action that were consensually developed and which could be initiated by clinicians to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness. Eighteen participants from a service catchment area in Australia were involved in a consensus-building workshop. This resulted in participants identifying and committing to a range of collaborative actions and processes to improve the physical health of people with severe mental illness. Consensus building was combined with an outcome mapping process, which has previously been used to facilitate health system integration. Data from the consensus-building workshop were thematically analysed and used to create an outcome map. Participants identified that accessible, continuous, holistic, consumer-driven, recovery-oriented care was required if improved physical health of people with SMI were to be achieved. However, this all-encompassing care was dependant on a wide-ranging philosophical shift in two areas, namely societal stigma and the dominance of pharmacological approaches to care. Participants believed that this shift was contingent on the attitude and behaviours of healthcare professionals and would require an inclusive, networked approach to care delivery and maximal utilization of existing funding. Rarely do multiple stakeholders from different sectors within the healthcare system have the opportunity to come together and create a collective vision for improving the health of a specific population in a defined area. We used a consensus building approach to generate solutions, actions and goal statements, which were then used to create a visual map that provided a purpose and signposts for action, thereby maximising the potential for cohesive action across sectors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 31 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 15%
Psychology 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Social Sciences 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 35 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,401,956
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,468
of 7,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,026
of 256,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#81
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.