↓ Skip to main content

Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12888-015-0534-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosalind Raine, Caoimhe Nic a’ Bháird, Penny Xanthopoulou, Isla Wallace, David Ardron, Miriam Harris, Julie Barber, Archie Prentice, Simon Gibbs, Michael King, Jane M. Blazeby, Susan Michie, Anne Lanceley, Alex Clarke, Gill Livingston

Abstract

Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings are the core mechanism for delivering mental health care but it is unclear which models improve care quality. The aim of the study was to agree recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health MDT meetings, based on national guidance, research evidence and experiential insights from mental health and other medical specialties. We established an expert panel of 16 health care professionals, policy-makers and patient representatives. Five panellists had experience in a range of adult mental health services, five in heart failure services and six in cancer services. Panellists privately rated 68 potential recommendations on a scale of one to nine, and re-rated them after panel discussion using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to determine consensus. We obtained agreement (median ≥ 7) and low variation in extent of agreement (Mean Absolute Deviation from Median of ≤1.11) for 21 recommendations. These included the explicit agreement and auditing of MDT meeting objectives, and the documentation and monitoring of treatment plan implementation. Formal consensus development methods that involved learning across specialities led to feasible recommendations for improved MDT meeting effectiveness in a wide range of settings. Our findings may be used by adult mental health teams to reflect on their practice and facilitate improvement. In some other contexts, the recommendations will require modification. For example, in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, context-specific issues such as the role of carers should be taken into account. A limitation of the comparative approach adopted was that only five members of the panel of 16 experts were mental health specialists.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 7 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Psychology 13 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 16%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,192,185
of 11,428,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#504
of 2,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,862
of 236,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#17
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,428,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 236,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.