Table 1 Characteristics of included studies
From: Structured communication methods for mental health consultations in primary care: a scoping review
Author(s), year of publication/country | Design/ methods | Main objective | Patient mental health criteria (n intervention vs control) | Staff profession (n) | Outcomes | Main findings | Quality (EPHPP/ CASP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bellon et al. 2016 [21]; Fernandez et al. 2018 [22]; Moreno-Peral et al. 2021 [20]/ Spain | RCT/ Quantitative | Can intervention delivered in primary care settings prevent depression | Moderate/high risk of depression (1663 vs 1663) | Primary care physicians (140) | Incidence of major depression; incidence of anxiety; cost-effectiveness | No difference in incidence of depression; lower incidence of anxiety in intervention group; very likely cost-effective | Strong |
Brody et al. 1990 [29]/ USA | RCT/ Quantitative | Evaluate the impact of two types of interventions on the primary care physician's management of patients with mental health problems | Mental health problems, ≥ 3 on GHQ (29 vs 24 vs 50)a | Internal medicine resident (60) | Patients: discussion of stress; compare pre-visit to post-visit attitudes about their stress; satisfaction with care; residents: care provided | More valuable stress counselling and more satisfied with their physician compared with control group; greater perceived reductions in the amount of stress and greater increases in their sense of control over stress; no difference in care provided by residents | Weak |
Collings et al. 2012 [30]/ New Zealand | Cohort/ Quantitative | Acceptability of ultra brief intervention | Mental health problems, > 35 on Kessler-10 (19) | GPs & nurses (6) | Patient & clinician satisfaction; psychological distress | High levels of acceptability; improvement in distress | Moderate |
Gask et al. 1989 [31]/ UK | Cohort/ Quantitative | Effectiveness of training in reattribution skills | Standardised patients (3) | GP trainees (22) | Increase in use of three steps of reattribution | Improvement in one step (“Making the Link”) | Moderate |
Jerant et al. 2009 [32]/ USA | RCT/ Quantitative | Effectiveness of intervention for training residents in SEE IT | Standardised patients (4) | Family medicine, internal medicine (64) | Use of SEE IT by residents; socio-demographic; training acceptability | Greater use of SEE ITs, training acceptable | Weak |
Jerant et al. 2016a [33]/ USA | RCT/ Quantitative | Effectiveness of intervention for training physicians in SEE IT | Standardised patients (6) | Family physicians, general internists (28 intervention vs 24 control) | Use of SEE IT; response to training | Greater use of SEE ITs; higher training value; similar low hassle | Weak |
Jerant et al. 2016b [34]/ USA | Case control/ Quantitative | Does exposure to SEE IT enhance patient self-efficacy and health behaviour change mediators | Mental health problems, ≥ 10 on PHQ-9 (131) | As above | Self-care self-efficacy; readiness for self-care of health conditions; health locus of control; socio-demographic; health indicator variables, depression symptoms | More favourable post-visit scores on a composite measure of five psychological HBCMs—driven by increased stage of readiness for self-care and reduced Chance health locus of control | Moderate |
Lam et al. 2010/ Hongkong [26] | RCT/ Quantitative | Effectiveness in improving quality of life and reducing consultation rates | Mental health problems, positive screen on HADS (149 vs 183 vs 150)a | Family medicine trainees | HRQoL; mental health; consultation rate; trainees’ competences | Same improvement in HRQoL; same decrease in mental health severity; trainees used core techniques 90% of sessions | Moderate |
Mathieson et al. 2013 [35]/ New Zealand | Collaborative/ Qualitative | Develop brief intervention | Sub-threshold depression or anxiety (14) | Doctors & nurses (15) | n/a | CBT-based guided self-management approach; three sessions over 5 weeks | 7/9 criteria met |
Mathieson et al. 2012 [27]/ New Zealand | Cohort/ Mixed | Acceptability of ultra brief intervention for Maori population | Mental health problems, > 35 on Kessler-10 (22) | GPs & nurses (23) | Adaptations made; Patient & clinician satisfaction; psychological distress | Addition of Maori language and concepts to intervention; 56% completed intervention; positive feedback; improvement in distress | Weak |
Mathieson et al. 2019 [23]/ New Zealand | RCT/ Quantitative | Effectiveness of ultra brief Intervention In improving mental health and functioning | Mental health problems, > 35 on Kessler-10 (85 vs 75) | GPs (62 vs 50) | Psychological distress; anxiety/depression: work, social and relationship functioning | No difference in psychological distress & secondary outcomes; unable to achieve full recruitment to sample size | Moderate |
Montag Schafer et al. 2016 [24]/ USA | Cohort/ Mixed | Effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability of intervention | Diagnosed mental health disorder (20) | Pharmacists (8) | Patient & pharmacist satisfaction; number of drug therapy problems | Positive feedback from patients, mixed from pharmacists; average 2 DTP identified | Weak |
Morriss et al. 1998 [36]/ UK | Static group comparison/ Quantitative | Cost-effectiveness of training GPs in reattribution | Somatised mental health disorder & GHQ-12 > 3 (112 vs 103) | GPs (8) | Self-rated psychiatric symptoms; direct health costs | No difference in psychiatric cases; total costs reduced by 15% | Moderate |
Seal et al. 2021 [37]/ USA | RCT/ Mixed | Effectiveness in improving mental health treatment engagement among veterans | Screened positive for ≥ 1 mental health problem & not engaged in treatment (137 vs 135) | Veteran peer coaches (2) | Initiation of mental health treatment and retention; other care; mental health symptoms & QoL; patient experiences; fidelity | No difference in treatment initiation & retention; more intervention participants engaged in other activities; fewer MH symptoms, better QoL; fidelity was 3/5 | Moderate |