Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42715183

Relational care in community mental health: Evaluating staff experiences in Intensive Community Care Services (ICCS) vs treatment as usual.

Opeyemi Atanda·Paula Reavey·Ben Wong·Ebony Baker·Jessica Collier·Thilipan Thaventhiran·Veronika Dobler·Ruth Woolhouse·Toby Zundel·Joe Clacey·Jovanka Tolmac·Izabela Pilecka·Leon Wehncke·Tauseef Mehdi·Rhys Bevan-Jones·Dennis Ougrin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The quality of healthcare delivery relies heavily on building strong relationships between healthcare providers (HCPs) and clients. This study presents the results of a process evaluation for a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) examining the effectiveness of Intensive Community Care Service (ICCS) vs Treatment as Usual (TAU; inpatient or core community CAMHS). METHODS: Thirty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with staff across various services, including 20 from ICCS and 14 other TAU services. A thematic decomposition analysis was conducted on the data, and specific themes relevant to staff experiences of young people's engagement with services and overall recovery. RESULTS: Three main themes were observed in the HCP data (1. Relational Ecologies: barriers and enablers to engagement, 2. flexibility of approach amidst systemic pressures and 3. the web of trust in the relationship-building process). HCPs highlighted the necessity of developing trust and rapport through non-clinical engagement strategies, such as informal visits and personalised interactions. HCPs emphasised that without trust, treatment effectiveness diminishes, necessitating a tailored approach rather than a one-size-fits-all model. The flexibility in duration of treatment and methods of engagement was noted as crucial in accommodating individual client needs and fostering an open, trusting environment necessary for long-term recovery. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the vital importance of relational care models, especially ICCS, in addressing the complex needs of Children and Young People (CYP). Flexible, family-centred approaches improve trust, engagement, and long-term recovery outcomes. Recommendations include tackling systemic barriers and expanding relational care models within CAMHS to meet increasing mental health demands effectively. Further research should investigate scalable strategies for integrating these insights into wider mental health service frameworks.

Explore related subjects

HumansCommunity Mental Health ServicesFemaleMaleHealth PersonnelAdultMental HealthJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Opeyemi Atanda, Paula Reavey, Ben Wong, Ebony Baker, Jessica Collier, Thilipan Thaventhiran, Veronika Dobler, Ruth Woolhouse, Toby Zundel, Joe Clacey, Jovanka Tolmac, Izabela Pilecka, Leon Wehncke, Tauseef Mehdi, Rhys Bevan-Jones, Dennis Ougrin. 2026-09-09. Relational care in community mental health: Evaluating staff experiences in Intensive Community Care Services (ICCS) vs treatment as usual.. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356608

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial resourceAdult subjectFemale subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectMale subjectMental Health subjectRandomized controlled trials study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to mental health services in England (the ODDESSI Trial): a multisite cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Open Dialogue is a person-centred, transdiagnostic model of mental health care that emphasises continuity, therapeutic relationships, and collaboration with the service user's social network. Open Dialogue is a service-wide approach to care involving network meetings with the service user, members of their social network, and usually two practitioners who support the network throughout the duration of care. In this cluster-randomised trial, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to community mental health services in England. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel two-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled superiority trial was conducted in mental health services in five National Health Service trusts in London and the South of England. Clusters were defined at the level of primary care practices within service catchment areas. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older presenting in crisis to mental health services and registered with a practice within trial clusters. Randomisation was done at the cluster level (1:1), stratified by catchment area, and balanced on average general practice (GP) list size and Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015). The chief investigator, senior statistician, and assessors of the primary outcome were masked in the study. Participants either received Open Dialogue or treatment as usual, which refers to the functional team model currently implemented throughout English mental health services. The primary outcome was time (days) to first relapse following initial recovery from the index crisis censored at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Participant-reported secondary outcomes were EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale, Social Provisions Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale, Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery, and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, measured at five timepoints over 2 years, and clinical measures were extracted from electronic health records. People with relevant lived experience were involved in the design and execution of the study. Fidelity to the model of care in Open Dialogue and treatment as usual, and adherence to the delivery of Open Dialogue, were measured prior to each site starting participant recruitment, then every 6 months thereafter until the final participant follow-up in that site. The trial was retrospectively registered (ISRCTN52653325) and is complete. FINDINGS: 185 general practices associated with six mental health Trusts across England were identified for screening. 105 practices were excluded, and 80 were included in cluster formation, forming 32 clusters that were randomly assigned (16 to treatment as usual and 16 to the Open Dialogue intervention). One mental health trust (two clusters) withdrew, resulting in five mental health trusts (30 clusters) participating in the trial. Between June 25, 2019, and Dec 9, 2021, 494 participants (266 [54%] female gender, 221 [45%] male gender, 341 [69%] White British) with a mean age of 38·1 years (SD 13·4) provided consent for study inclusion (223 in the treatment as usual group and 271 in the Open Dialogue group). Of these, 174 (78%) in the treatment as usual group and 225 (83%) in the Open Dialogue group recovered and had data enabling relapse determination; there was no significant difference between groups on the primary outcome of time to relapse following initial recovery (marginal hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·67-1·32]). For secondary outcomes, Open Dialogue was associated with significantly lower probabilities of psychiatric inpatient admission and re-referral to crisis care or secondary mental health services, and with improvements in self-rated recovery, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with services. There were no significant differences in social network quality or size. There were 386 serious adverse events (281 in the treatment as usual group and 105 in the Open Dialogue group); 376 (97%) were deemed to be unrelated to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Open Dialogue did not reduce time to first relapse compared with treatment as usual, the primary outcome, but it reduced acute inpatient bed use, improved service user reported outcomes and experience, and there were no significant safety concerns. Further investigation is required to determine whether Open Dialogue can enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of crisis care and continuing care in community mental health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Co-location of services: an umbrella review to consider how primary care estates could be better used to support disadvantaged groups.

AIM: To examine how co-located community and health services in primary care could support disadvantaged groups. BACKGROUND: Co-locating services is thought to improve access, collaboration, and patient outcomes. There are thousands of primary care premises across the UK. At a time of stagnating or widening health inequalities, they present an ideal opportunity to support communities, especially in disadvantaged areas. METHOD: We conducted a systematic umbrella review. Articles were retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase with supplementary snowball and grey literature searches. Reviews of co-located services supporting disadvantaged groups in primary care between 2010 and February 2024 were included. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Two reviewers assessed eligibility, extracted data and assessed quality. Outcomes relating to health, welfare, healthcare utilization, and activity and processes were assessed. Data were narratively synthesized using a convergent integrated approach. FINDINGS: 2626 studies were screened, supplemented by snowball and grey literatures searches. Thirteen reviews were included for synthesis. One review included meta-analysis. Three models of care were identified; legal advice, welfare advice, and complementary health care. Data were synthesized according to themes: access and engagement, quality of care, efficiency, improved health, and improved social factors. We found co-located services can improve access to care, engagement in treatment, and quality of care for disadvantaged groups. Improvements to social determinants of health and mental health and well-being outcomes were reported. Findings were inconsistent when considering the impact of co-location on efficiency. We conclude that co-located services in primary care have the potential to improve identification of people most in need and improve their access to high quality health care and social support. Policy makers and practitioners should maximize the use of primary care estates to support disadvantaged groups and communities.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Prevalence of psychosis in South Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychotic disorders are a major contributor to global disability, yet prevalence data from South Asia which inhabits a quarter of the world's population, remain limited. Reliable estimates are essential for health service planning, policy, and closing the substantial treatment gap. This review provides the first comprehensive synthesis of psychosis prevalence across South Asia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Global Health, and Medline to 18 December 2024 for DSM- or ICD-based prevalence studies in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies in community or clinical populations were included. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated pooled prevalence using the logit transformation. Heterogeneity was explored with meta-regression of key methodological variables (publication year, diagnostic system, residential setting). FINDINGS: Thirty-one studies from five countries were included. Among community-dwelling adults, pooled point prevalence was 0.85% and lifetime prevalence was 1.40%, with inter-country differences (India 1.18%, Pakistan 2.13%, Nepal 2.90%). Clinical samples showed substantially higher proportions of individuals with psychosis in service settings (11.44%), reflecting concentration of cases in treatment-seeking samples. Data for children and adolescents were limited and summarised narratively. Heterogeneity was high across meta-analyses, and exploratory meta-regression did not identify any significant moderators. INTERPRETATION: Psychosis prevalence estimates in South Asia appear higher than global averages but should be interpreted cautiously due to substantial heterogeneity and methodological variation; nevertheless, they highlight the need for culturally sensitive screening, improved detection, and strengthened mental health services.

Humans↗