ReviewCommunity mental health journal2025
Community-based Collaborative Care for Serious Mental Illness: A Rapid Qualitative Evidence Synthesis of Health Care Providers' Experiences and Perspectives.
Review in Community mental health journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Navigating Professional Growth and Constraint Through Clinical Supervision: A Qualitative Study of Community Mental Health Nurse Specialists in South Korea.International journal of mental health nursing · 2026Article
- Transforming public mental health: a review on global trends, challenges, and pathways to change.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Review
- Mobile cognitive remote assessment of schizophrenia: a global multi-site pilot study.Schizophrenia (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Healthcare providers' experiences of community-based collaborative care for serious mental illness: a qualitative study in two integrated clinics in South Africa.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Community-based collaborative care (CBCC) is an effective approach for addressing the needs of people with mental health conditions. However, even with the established components of CBCC in place, CBCCs effectiveness for serious mental illnesses (SMIs) remains unknown. This review aims to synthesize qualitative evidence of health care providers' experiences of CBCC in order to identify key factors that facilitate or hinder collaboration in the specific context of SMIs. We searched databases to identify 3368 studies. The eligibility criteria included qualitative studies focusing on health care providers' experiences in delivering a CBCC intervention for people with SMIs. Studies were included if they had at least 2 of 3 CBCC components: a multidisciplinary team, case management, and structured communication. Thematic analysis was used to synthesise the findings, and the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research framework was used to assess the quality of included studies. The protocol is registered on Prospero. Of the 19 studies included in our review, 5 had achieved collaboration, which was driven by several key ingredients: the availability of on-site case managers and psychiatrists, or the psychiatrists' willingness to travel to the site; the psychiatrists' efforts in actively engaging and supporting the CBCC team; the primary care clinicians' willingness to collaborate with the team and reduce traditional hierarchical engagement; the team's understanding of CBCC; and case managers with strong interpersonal and professional skills. The inclusion of CBCC components do not guarantee collaboration. The findings emphasise the importance of on-site mental health specialists, clearly defined roles, and proactive providers in achieving collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.