Literature DB >> 10669447

A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a referrals facilitator between primary care and the voluntary sector.

C Grant1, T Goodenough, I Harvey, C Hine.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare outcome and resource utilisation among patients referred to the Amalthea Project, a liaison organisation that facilitates contact between voluntary organisations and patients in primary care, with patients receiving routine general practitioner care.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with follow up at one and four months.
SETTING: 26 general practices in Avon. PARTICIPANTS: 161 patients identified by their general practitioner as having psychosocial problems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were psychological wellbeing (assessed with the hospital anxiety and depression scale) and social support (assessed using the Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire). Secondary outcomes were quality of life measures (the Dartmouth COOP/WONCA functional health assessment charts and the delighted-terrible faces scale), cost of contacts with the primary healthcare team and Amalthea Project, cost of prescribing in primary care, and cost of referrals to other agencies, over four months.
RESULTS: The Amalthea group showed significantly greater improvements in anxiety (average difference between groups after adjustment for baseline -1.9, 95% confidence interval -3.0 to -0.7), other emotional feelings (average adjusted difference -0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), ability to carry out everyday activities (-0.5, -0.8 to -0.2), feelings about general health (-0.4, -0.7 to -0.1), and quality of life (-0.5, -0.9 to -0.1). No difference was detected in depression or perceived social support. The mean cost was significantly greater in the Amalthea arm than the general practitioner care arm ( pound153 v pound133, P=0. 025).
CONCLUSION: Referral to the Amalthea Project and subsequent contact with the voluntary sector results in clinically important benefits compared with usual general practitioner care in managing psychosocial problems, but at a higher cost.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10669447      PMCID: PMC27287          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7232.419

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  15 in total

1.  What does a doctor do with psychosocial problems in primary care?

Authors:  P F Verhaak; H J Wennink
Journal:  Int J Psychiatry Med       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.210

2.  Classification of psychosocial disturbance in general practice.

Authors:  D J Sharp; M B King
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1989-09

3.  Voluntary organizations: an underused asset.

Authors:  M Payne; S Clayton
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1987-08

4.  Self help groups and professionals--what is the relationship?

Authors:  M E Black
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1988-05-28

5.  Partnership for health: voluntary organisations and the NHS.

Authors:  N Black
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1988-01-09

6.  Problems with recruitment in a randomized controlled trial of counselling in general practice: causes and implications.

Authors:  K Fairhurst; C Dowrick
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  1996-04

7.  A survey of the management of psychosocial illness in general practice in Manchester.

Authors:  C R Whitehouse
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1987-03

8.  Assessment of function in routine clinical practice: description of the COOP Chart method and preliminary findings.

Authors:  E Nelson; J Wasson; J Kirk; A Keller; D Clark; A Dietrich; A Stewart; M Zubkoff
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

9.  The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

Authors:  A S Zigmond; R P Snaith
Journal:  Acta Psychiatr Scand       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 6.392

10.  The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire. Measurement of social support in family medicine patients.

Authors:  W E Broadhead; S H Gehlbach; F V de Gruy; B H Kaplan
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  37 in total

1.  Voluntary organisations: from Cinderella to white knight?

Authors:  I K Crombie; D R Coid
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-02-12

2.  Long term benefits need to be taken into account when evaluating family support projects.

Authors:  C Goodhart; J Graffy
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-10

3.  Social prescribing in general practice: adding meaning to medicine.

Authors:  Janet Brandling; William House
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Mental health services in metropolitan primary care. The unique challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Dennis Ougrin
Journal:  London J Prim Care (Abingdon)       Date:  2008

Review 5.  Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals.

Authors:  Anne Andermann
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Steps to benefit from social prescription: a qualitative interview study.

Authors:  Kirsty Payne; Elizabeth Walton; Christopher Burton
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 7.  Primary care mental health workers: models of working and evidence of effectiveness.

Authors:  Peter Bower
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.386

8.  'Welzijn op Recept' (Social Prescribing): a helping hand in re-establishing social contacts - an explorative qualitative study.

Authors:  Miriam L Heijnders; J J Meijs
Journal:  Prim Health Care Res Dev       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 1.458

9.  Cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of primary care mental health workers.

Authors:  Helen Lester; Nick Freemantle; Sue Wilson; Helen Sorohan; Elizabeth England; Carl Griffin; Aparna Shankar
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.386

10.  Implementing the role of the primary care mental health worker: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Elizabeth England; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.