Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Aug;19(4):973-87.
doi: 10.1111/hex.12435. Epub 2015 Dec 29.

Defining continuity of care from the perspectives of mental health service users and professionals: an exploratory, comparative study

Angela Sweeney  1 , Jonathon Davies  2 , Susan McLaren  3 , Margaret Whittock  3 , Ferew Lemma  3 , Ruth Belling  3 , Sarah Clement  4 , Tom Burns  5 , Jocelyn Catty  6 , Ian Rees Jones  7 , Diana Rose  4 , Til Wykes  8
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Defining continuity of care from the perspectives of mental health service users and professionals: an exploratory, comparative study

Angela Sweeney et al. Health Expect. 2016 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Continuity of care (COC) is central to the organization and delivery of mental health services. Traditional definitions have excluded service users, and this lack of involvement has been linked to poor conceptual clarity surrounding the term. Consequently, very little is known about the differences and similarities in the conceptualization of COC by mental health service users and professionals.

Objective: To explore and compare mental health service users' and professionals' definitions of COC.

Methods: Using an exploratory, qualitative design, five focus groups with 32 service users each met twice. Data were analysed thematically to generate a service user-defined model of COC. In a cross-sectional survey, health and social care professionals (n = 184) defined COC; responses were analysed thematically. Service user and professional definitions were conceptually mapped and compared to identify similarities and differences.

Results: There was crossover between the service user and professional derived models of COC. Both contained temporal, quality, systemic, staff, hospital and needs-related elements of COC. Service users prioritized access, information, peer support and avoiding services; health professionals most frequently referred to staff, cross-sectional and temporal COC. Service users alone identified service avoidance, peer support and day centres as COC elements; professionals alone identified cross-sectional working.

Conclusions: Important similarities and differences exist in service user and professional conceptualizations of COC. Further research is necessary to explore these differences, prior to integrating service user and professional perspectives in a validated COC framework which could enable the development and evaluation of interventions to improve COC, informing policy and practice.

Keywords: continuity of care; general adult psychiatry; health professionals; mental health services; service users.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Adair C, McDougall G, Beckie A et al History and measurement of continuity of care in mental health services and evidence of its role in outcomes. Psychiatric Services, 2003; 54: 1351–1356. - PubMed
    1. Bass R, Windle C. Continuity of care: an approach to measurement. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972; 129: 196–201. - PubMed
    1. Joyce A, Wild C, Adair C et al Continuity of care in mental health services: toward clarifying the construct. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 2004; 49: 539–549. - PubMed
    1. Freeman G, Shepperd S, Robinson I et al Continuity of Care: Report of a Scoping Exercise for the SDO Programme of NHS R&D. London: National Coordinating Centre for Service Delivery and Organisation, 2000.
    1. Jones IR, Ahmed N, Catty J et al Illness careers and continuity of care in mental health services: a qualitative study of service users and carers. Social Science & Medicine, 2009; 69: 623–639. - PubMed

Publication types