Service design for children and young people with common mental health problems: literature review, service mapping and collective case study.
Humans
Child
Adolescent
Mental Health Services
/ organization & administration
Mental Disorders
/ therapy
COVID-19
/ epidemiology
England
Wales
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Health Services Accessibility
/ organization & administration
Male
Female
Child Health Services
/ organization & administration
SARS-CoV-2
ADOLESCENT
ADOLESCENT HEALTH SERVICES
CAMHS
CASE STUDY RESEARCH
CHILD
CHILD HEALTH SERVICES
DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE
HEALTH SERVICES
INTEGRATIVE REVIEW
LITERATURE REVIEW
MENTAL DISORDERS
MENTAL HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ORGANISATIONAL CASE STUDIES
SCHOOL MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
SCOPING REVIEW
SERVICE MAP
SERVICE MODEL
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
TYPOLOGY
Journal
Health and social care delivery research
ISSN: 2755-0079
Titre abrégé: Health Soc Care Deliv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918470788706676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2024
May 2024
Historique:
medline:
20
5
2024
pubmed:
20
5
2024
entrez:
20
5
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The mental health of children/young people is a growing concern internationally. Numerous reports and reviews have consistently described United Kingdom children's mental health services as fragmented, variable, inaccessible and lacking an evidence base. Little is known about the effectiveness of, and implementation complexities associated with, service models for children/young people experiencing 'common' mental health problems like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and self-harm. To develop a model for high-quality service design for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems by identifying available services, barriers and enablers to access, and the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of such services. Evidence syntheses with primary research, using a sequential, mixed-methods design. Inter-related scoping and integrative reviews were conducted alongside a map of relevant services across England and Wales, followed by a collective case study of English and Welsh services. Global (systematic reviews); England and Wales (service map; case study). Literature reviews: relevant bibliographic databases and grey literature. Service map: online survey and offline desk research. Case study: 108 participants (41 children/young people, 26 parents, 41 staff) across nine case study sites. A single literature search informed both reviews. The service map was obtained from an online survey and internet searches. Case study sites were sampled from the service map; because of coronavirus disease 2019, case study data were collected remotely. 'Young co-researchers' assisted with case study data collection. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised using the 'weaving' approach of 'integration through narrative'. A service model typology was derived from the scoping review. The integrative review found effectiveness evidence for collaborative care, outreach approaches, brief intervention services and the 'availability, responsiveness and continuity' framework. There was cost-effectiveness evidence only for collaborative care. No service model appeared to be more acceptable than others. The service map identified 154 English and Welsh services. Three themes emerged from the case study data: 'pathways to support'; 'service engagement'; and 'learning and understanding'. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised into a coproduced model of high-quality service provision for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems. Defining 'service model' was a challenge. Some service initiatives were too new to have filtered through into the literature or service map. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought about a surge in remote/digital services which were under-represented in the literature. A dearth of relevant studies meant few cost-effectiveness conclusions could be drawn. There was no strong evidence to suggest any existing service model was better than another. Instead, we developed a coproduced, evidence-based model that incorporates the fundamental components necessary for high-quality children's mental health services and which has utility for policy, practice and research. Future work should focus on: the potential of our model to assist in designing, delivering and auditing children's mental health services; reasons for non-engagement in services; the cost effectiveness of different approaches in children's mental health; the advantages/disadvantages of digital/remote platforms in delivering services; understanding how and what the statutory sector might learn from the non-statutory sector regarding choice, personalisation and flexibility. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106219. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/09/08) and is published in full in In this research study, we explored services for children and young people with ‘common’ mental health problems like depression, anxiety and self-harm. We aimed to find out what services exist, how children/young people and families find out about and access these services, what the services actually do, whether they are helpful and whether they offer value for money. We looked at the international literature (reports and research papers) to identify different approaches to providing support, and to find out whether certain approaches worked better than others and whether children/young people and families preferred some approaches over others. The literature provided very little information about the value for money of services. We also carried out a survey and used the internet to identify 154 relevant services in England and Wales. To explore services in more detail, and hear directly from those using them, we planned to visit 9 of the 154 services to interview children/young people, parents and staff. Unfortunately, coronavirus disease 2019 stopped us directly visiting the nine services and so we conducted phone and video interviews instead. We still managed to speak to, and hear the experiences of, more than 100 people (including children/young people and parents). We combined information from the literature with information from the interviews to create an evidence-based ‘model’ of what services should look like. This model considers some basic things like how quickly children/young people could access a service, what information was available, the importance of confidentiality and whether staff make the service fit with the child/young person’s needs and interests. It also considers whether the service helps children/young people learn skills to manage their mental health and whether staff at a service work well together. We hope our model will help existing and new services improve what they offer to children/young people and families.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
The mental health of children/young people is a growing concern internationally. Numerous reports and reviews have consistently described United Kingdom children's mental health services as fragmented, variable, inaccessible and lacking an evidence base. Little is known about the effectiveness of, and implementation complexities associated with, service models for children/young people experiencing 'common' mental health problems like anxiety, depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and self-harm.
Aim
UNASSIGNED
To develop a model for high-quality service design for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems by identifying available services, barriers and enablers to access, and the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of such services.
Design
UNASSIGNED
Evidence syntheses with primary research, using a sequential, mixed-methods design. Inter-related scoping and integrative reviews were conducted alongside a map of relevant services across England and Wales, followed by a collective case study of English and Welsh services.
Setting
UNASSIGNED
Global (systematic reviews); England and Wales (service map; case study).
Data sources
UNASSIGNED
Literature reviews: relevant bibliographic databases and grey literature. Service map: online survey and offline desk research. Case study: 108 participants (41 children/young people, 26 parents, 41 staff) across nine case study sites.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A single literature search informed both reviews. The service map was obtained from an online survey and internet searches. Case study sites were sampled from the service map; because of coronavirus disease 2019, case study data were collected remotely. 'Young co-researchers' assisted with case study data collection. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised using the 'weaving' approach of 'integration through narrative'.
Results
UNASSIGNED
A service model typology was derived from the scoping review. The integrative review found effectiveness evidence for collaborative care, outreach approaches, brief intervention services and the 'availability, responsiveness and continuity' framework. There was cost-effectiveness evidence only for collaborative care. No service model appeared to be more acceptable than others. The service map identified 154 English and Welsh services. Three themes emerged from the case study data: 'pathways to support'; 'service engagement'; and 'learning and understanding'. The integrative review and case study data were synthesised into a coproduced model of high-quality service provision for children/young people experiencing common mental health problems.
Limitations
UNASSIGNED
Defining 'service model' was a challenge. Some service initiatives were too new to have filtered through into the literature or service map. Coronavirus disease 2019 brought about a surge in remote/digital services which were under-represented in the literature. A dearth of relevant studies meant few cost-effectiveness conclusions could be drawn.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
There was no strong evidence to suggest any existing service model was better than another. Instead, we developed a coproduced, evidence-based model that incorporates the fundamental components necessary for high-quality children's mental health services and which has utility for policy, practice and research.
Future work
UNASSIGNED
Future work should focus on: the potential of our model to assist in designing, delivering and auditing children's mental health services; reasons for non-engagement in services; the cost effectiveness of different approaches in children's mental health; the advantages/disadvantages of digital/remote platforms in delivering services; understanding how and what the statutory sector might learn from the non-statutory sector regarding choice, personalisation and flexibility.
Study registration
UNASSIGNED
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018106219.
Funding
UNASSIGNED
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/09/08) and is published in full in
In this research study, we explored services for children and young people with ‘common’ mental health problems like depression, anxiety and self-harm. We aimed to find out what services exist, how children/young people and families find out about and access these services, what the services actually do, whether they are helpful and whether they offer value for money. We looked at the international literature (reports and research papers) to identify different approaches to providing support, and to find out whether certain approaches worked better than others and whether children/young people and families preferred some approaches over others. The literature provided very little information about the value for money of services. We also carried out a survey and used the internet to identify 154 relevant services in England and Wales. To explore services in more detail, and hear directly from those using them, we planned to visit 9 of the 154 services to interview children/young people, parents and staff. Unfortunately, coronavirus disease 2019 stopped us directly visiting the nine services and so we conducted phone and video interviews instead. We still managed to speak to, and hear the experiences of, more than 100 people (including children/young people and parents). We combined information from the literature with information from the interviews to create an evidence-based ‘model’ of what services should look like. This model considers some basic things like how quickly children/young people could access a service, what information was available, the importance of confidentiality and whether staff make the service fit with the child/young person’s needs and interests. It also considers whether the service helps children/young people learn skills to manage their mental health and whether staff at a service work well together. We hope our model will help existing and new services improve what they offer to children/young people and families.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
In this research study, we explored services for children and young people with ‘common’ mental health problems like depression, anxiety and self-harm. We aimed to find out what services exist, how children/young people and families find out about and access these services, what the services actually do, whether they are helpful and whether they offer value for money. We looked at the international literature (reports and research papers) to identify different approaches to providing support, and to find out whether certain approaches worked better than others and whether children/young people and families preferred some approaches over others. The literature provided very little information about the value for money of services. We also carried out a survey and used the internet to identify 154 relevant services in England and Wales. To explore services in more detail, and hear directly from those using them, we planned to visit 9 of the 154 services to interview children/young people, parents and staff. Unfortunately, coronavirus disease 2019 stopped us directly visiting the nine services and so we conducted phone and video interviews instead. We still managed to speak to, and hear the experiences of, more than 100 people (including children/young people and parents). We combined information from the literature with information from the interviews to create an evidence-based ‘model’ of what services should look like. This model considers some basic things like how quickly children/young people could access a service, what information was available, the importance of confidentiality and whether staff make the service fit with the child/young person’s needs and interests. It also considers whether the service helps children/young people learn skills to manage their mental health and whether staff at a service work well together. We hope our model will help existing and new services improve what they offer to children/young people and families.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-181Références
National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research. Commissioning Brief 17/09 – Services to Support Early Intervention and Self-care for Children and Young People Referred to Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services/CAMHS with Common Emotional and Behavioural Problems. Southampton: NIHR; 2017.
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Research Award: Identifying and Evaluating Mental Health Early Intervention Services and Self-care Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Young People: A Mixed Methods Study, 17/09/04. Funding and Awards. 2017. URL: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/09/04 (accessed 13 April 2022).
Murphy M, Fonagy P. Mental health problems in children and young people. In Lemer C, editor. Our Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays, Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2012. London: Department of Health; 2013.
National Assembly for Wales Children, Young People and Education Committee. Inquiry into Specialist Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales; 2014.
NHS England. Future in Mind: Promoting, Protecting and Improving Our Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing. London: NHS England; 2015.
Children’s Commissioner for England. Lightning Review: Access to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, May 2016. London: Children’s Commissioner for England; 2016.
World Health Organization. Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
Green H, McGinnity A, Meltzer H, Ford T, Goodman R. Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great Britain, 2004. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan; 2005.
Sadler K, Vizard T, Ford T, Marcheselli F, Pearce N, Mandalia D, et al. Mental Health of Children and Young People in England, 2017: Summary of Key Findings. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2018.
Newlove-Delgado T, Williams T, Robertson K, McManus S, Sadler K, Vizard T, et al. Mental Health of Children and Young People in England, 2021. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2021.
NHS Digital. Mental Health Services Referrals and Care Contacts for Children and Young People Aged 0 to 18. Mental Health Services Monthly Statistics; 2021. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/data-tools-and-services/data-services/mental-health-data-hub/mental-health-services-monthly-statistics (accessed 13 April 2022).
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Common Mental Health Problems: Identification and Pathways to Care Clinical Guideline [CG123]. London: NICE; 2011.
NHS Health Advisory Service. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services: Together We Stand. London: HMSO; 1995.
Audit Commission. Children in Mind: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. London: Audit Commission; 1999.
CAMHS Review. Children and Young People in Mind: The Final Report of the National CAMHS Review. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families/Department of Health; 2008.
National Assembly for Wales Children, Young People and Education Committee. Mind Over Matter: A Report on the Step Change Needed in Emotional and Mental Health Support for Children and Young People in Wales. Cardiff: National Assembly for Wales; 2018.
Robotham D, James K, Cyhlarova E. Managing demand and capacity within child and adolescent mental health services: an evaluation of the Choice and Partnership Approach. Mental Health Rev J 2010;15:22–30. https://doi.org/10.5042/mhrj.2010.0656
Kingsbury S, Rayment B, Fleming I, Thompson P, York A, Hemsley M, et al. CYP IAPT Principles in Child & Adolescent Mental Health Services: Values and Standards: ‘Delivering with and Delivering Well’. London: CAMHS Press; 2014.
Wolpert M, Harris R, Hodges S, Fuggle P, James R, Weiner A, et al. THRIVE Framework for System Change. London: Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families/Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust; 2019.
Pryjmachuk S, Elvey R, Kirk S, Kendal S, Bower P, Catchpole R. Developing a model of mental health self-care support for children and young people through an integrated evaluation of available types of provision involving systematic review, meta-analysis and case study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014;2:1–212.
Public Health England. The Link Between Pupil Health and Wellbeing and Attainment: A Briefing for Head Teachers, Governors and Staff in Education Settings. London: Public Health Publications; 2014.
Department of Health/Department for Education. Transforming Children and Young People’s Mental Health Provision: A Green Paper. London: Department of Health/Department for Education; 2017.
Hannigan B, Edwards D, Evans N, Gillen E, Longo M, Pryjmachuk S, Trainor G. An evidence synthesis of risk identification, assessment and management for young people using tier 4 inpatient child and adolescent mental health services. Heath Serv Deliv Res 2015;3:1–228.
Cowan K, Oliver S. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook, Version 5. Southampton: James Lind Alliance; 2013.
Lovell K, Bee P, Bower P, Brooks H, Cahoon P, Callaghan P, et al. Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT. Programme Grants Appl Res 2019;7:1–140. https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar07090
Bee P, Brooks H, Callaghan P, Lovell K, editors. A Research Handbook for Patient and Public Involvement Researchers. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2018.
Fraser C, Carrington B, Crooks J, Diffey J, Evans N, et al.; The Blueprint Writing Collective. A blueprint for involvement: reflections of lived experience co-researchers and academic researchers on working collaboratively. Res Involv Engagem 2022;8:68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00404-3
Pryjmachuk S, Kirk S, Fraser C, Evans N, Lane R, Bee P, et al. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-effectiveness of Services for Children and Young People with Common Mental Health Problems. PROSPERO CRD42018106219. 2018. URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018106219 (accessed 13 April 2022).
Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O’Brien KK, Straus S, Tricco AC, Perrier L, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:1291–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Hetrick SE, Parker AG, Callahan P, Purcell R. Evidence mapping: illustrating an emerging methodology to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health. J Eval Clin Pract 2010;16:1025–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01112.x
Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Syn Meth 2014;5:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1123
Sargeant JM, O’Connor AM. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: applications in veterinary medicine. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00011
Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005;52:546–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x
Cronin MA, George E. The why and how of the integrative review. Organ Res Methods 2020;26:168–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2008.
Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, et al.; Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic Reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016;354:i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507
Brauner CB, Stephens CB. Estimating the prevalence of early childhood serious emotional/behavioral disorders: challenges and recommendations. Public Health Rep 2006;121:303–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335490612100314
NHS England. Adult Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme. n.d. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/mental-health/adults/iapt/ (accessed 13 April 2022).
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M; Medical Research Council Guidance. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
O’Cathain A, Croot L, Duncan E, Rousseau N, Sworn K, Turner KM, et al. Guidance on how to develop complex interventions to improve health and healthcare. BMJ Open 2019;9:e029954. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029954
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018 User Guide. Gatineau, QC: Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry Canada; 2018.
Scott SD, Rotter T, Flynn R, Brooks HM, Plesuk T, Bannar-Martin KH, et al. Systematic review of the use of process evaluations in knowledge translation research. Syst Rev 2019;8:266. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1161-y
Jensen PS, Hoagwood K, Petti T. Outcomes of mental health care for children and adolescents: II. Literature review and application of a comprehensive model. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 1996;35:1064–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199608000-00018
Bower P, Gilbody S. Stepped care in psychological therapies: access, effectiveness and efficiency: narrative literature review. Br J Psychiatry 2005;186:11–7.
Schmied DV, Brownhill DS, Walsh P. Models of Service Delivery and Interventions for Children and Young People with High Needs. Ashfield, NSW: NSW Department of Community Services; 2006.
Biggins T. Home-based treatment. In McDougall T, Cotgrove A, editors. Specialist Mental Healthcare for Children and Adolescents: Hospital, Intensive Community and Home-based Services. Abingdon: Routledge; 2014. pp. 96–122.
McDougall T, Worrall-Davies A, Hewson L, Richardson G, Cotgrove A. Tier 4 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) – inpatient care, day services and alternatives: an overview of Tier 4 CAMHS provision in the UK. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2008;13:173–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2007.00481.x
Kurtz Z. The Evidence Base to Guide Development of Tier 4 CAMHS. London: Department of Health; 2009.
Shepperd S, Doll H, Gowers S, James A, Fazel M, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Alternatives to inpatient mental health care for children and young people. Cochr Datab Syst Rev 2009;2:CD006410. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006410.pub2
Lamb CE. Alternatives to admission for children and adolescents: providing intensive mental healthcare services at home and in communities: what works? Curr Opin Psychiatry 2009;22:345–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32832c9082
Shailer JL, Gammon RA, de Terte I. Youth with serious mental health disorders: wraparound as a promising intervention in New Zealand. Aust N Z J Fam Ther 2013;34:186–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1028
Kwok KHR, Yuan SNV, Ougrin DR. Alternatives to inpatient care for children and adolescents with mental health disorders. Child Adolesc Ment Health 2016;21:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12123
Social Services Improvement Agency. Known Effectiveness of Models and Frameworks for Interventions with Children and Families: Phase 1. London: Cordis Bright; 2015.
Houses of Parliament Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology. POSTNote 563: Mental Health Service Models for Young People. London: The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology; 2017.
Harden A, Thomas J. Methodological issues in combining diverse study types in systematic reviews. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:257–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500155078
The World Bank. Population, Total. 2020. URL: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL (accessed 13 April 2022).
Gröne O, Garcia-Barbero M, WHO European Office for Integrated Health Care Services. Integrated care: a position paper of the WHO European Office for Integrated Health Care Services. Int J Integr Care 2001;1:e21.
Goodwin N. Understanding integrated care. Int J Integr Care 2016;16:6. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2530
Theodosiou L, Glick O. Peer Support Models for Children and Young People with Mental Health Problems. London: Centre for Mental Health/Children & Young People’s Mental Health Coalition; 2020.
Shah S. Collaborative Care: An Exploration into Core Tenets, Fidelity, and Policy. London: Centre for Mental Health; 2018.
Wergeland GJH, Riise EN, Öst L-G. Cognitive behavior therapy for internalizing disorders in children and adolescents in routine clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2021;83:101918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2020.101918
McGorry PD, Mei C. Early intervention in youth mental health: progress and future directions. Evid Based Mental Health 2018;21:182–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300060
McGorry P, Trethowan J, Rickwood D. Creating headspace for integrated youth mental health care. World Psychiatry 2019;18:140–1. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20619
Care Quality Commission. Provider Collaboration Review: Mental Health Care of Children and Young People During the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2021. URL: www.cqc.org.uk/publications/themes-care/provider-collaboration-review-mental-health-care-children-young-people (accessed 13 April 2022).
Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. What Is Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry? Academy of Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry. n.d. URL: www.clpsychiatry.org/about-aclp/whatis-clp/ (accessed 13 April 2022).
Bronfenbrenner U. Making Human Beings Human: Bioecological Perspectives on Human Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.
Bruns EJ, Walker J, Adams J, Miles P, Osher T, Rast J, et al. Ten Principles of the Wraparound Process. Portland, OR: National Wraparound Initiative, Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health, Portland State University; 2014.
Tolan PH, Dodge KA. Children’s mental health as a primary care and concern: a system for comprehensive support and service. Am Psychol 2005;60:601–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.601
Henggeler SW. Multisystemic therapy: an overview of clinical procedures, outcomes, and policy implications. Child Psychol Psychiatr Rev 1999;4:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360641798001786
MST UK & Ireland. MST Teams in the UK & Ireland. MST UK & Ireland. n.d. URL: www.mstuk.org/mst-uk/mst-uk-teams (accessed 13 April 2022).
Faw Stambaugh L, Mustillo SA, Burns BJ, Stephens RL, Baxter B, Edwards D, Dekraai M. Outcomes from wraparound and multisystemic therapy in a center for mental health services system-of-care demonstration site. J Emot Behav Disord 2007;15:143–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266070150030201
York A, Kingsbury S. The Choice and Partnership Approach: A Guide to CAPA. Bournemouth: Caric Press; 2009.
Powers J, Webber K, Bower H. Promoting school mental health with a systems of care approach: perspectives from community partners. Soc Work Ment Health 2011;9:147–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332985.2010.534363
Burchard JD. Evaluation of the Fort Bragg managed care experiment. J Child Fam Stud 1996;5:173–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237939
Friedman RM. The Fort Bragg study: what can we conclude? J Child Fam Stud 1996;5:161–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02237937
Bickman L. The evaluation of a children’s mental health managed care demonstration. J Ment Health Adm 1996;23:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02518639
Stroul BA, Ed M, Blau GM, Friedman RM. Updating the System of Care Concept and Philosophy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development, National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health; 2010.
Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. ‘Still Waiting’: A Rights Based Review of Mental Health Services and Support for Children and Young People in Northern Ireland. Belfast: Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People; 2018.
Crenna-Jennings W, Hutchinson J. Access to Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services: 2018. London: Education Policy Institute; 2018.
Wolpert M, Harris R, Hodges S, Fuggle P, James R, Weiner A, et al. THRIVE Elaborated. 2nd edn. London: CAMHS Press; 2016.
Glisson C. The organizational context of children’s mental health services. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev 2002;5:233–53.
Kutcher S, McLuckie A. Evergreen: creating a child and youth mental health framework for Canada. Psychiatr Serv 2013;64:479–82. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100269
Kirk S, Beatty S, Callery P, Milnes L, Pryjmachuk S. Evaluating Self-care Support for Children and Young People with Long-term Conditions. NIHR SDO report, SDO 08/1715/162. Southampton: NIHR; 2010.
Blueprint. Blueprint: Service Design for Children and Young People’s Mental Health. n.d. URL: https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/blueprint/ (accessed 13 April 2022).
Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families. Youth Wellbeing Directory. n.d. URL: www.annafreud.org/on-my-mind/youth-wellbeing/ (accessed 13 April 2022).
Youth Access. Find Your Local Service. n.d. URL: www.youthaccess.org.uk/services/find-your-local-service (accessed 13 April 2022).
Office for National Statistics. Census 2021: Population Estimates. 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates (accessed 13 April 2022).
Paun A, Cheung A, Nicholson E. Funding Devolution: The Barnett Formula in Theory and Practice. London: Institute for Government; 2021.
Hayes D, Edbrooke-Childs J, Town R, Wolpert M, Midgley N. Barriers and facilitators to shared decision making in child and youth mental health: clinician perspectives using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2019;28:655–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-1230-0
British Psychological Society. Mental Health Support Teams: How to Maximise the Impact of the New Workforce for Children and Young People. Leicester: British Psychological Society; 2019.
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Research Award: Crisis Responses for Children and Young People: An Evidence Synthesis of Service Organisation, Effectiveness and Experiences (CAMH Crisis), NIHR128359. Funding and Awards. 2019. URL: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR128359 (accessed 13 April 2022).
Yin R. Applications of Case Study Research. 3rd edn. London: Sage; 2012.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Bryman A, Burgess R, editors. Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994. pp. 173–94.
Ritchie J, Spencer L, editors. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: Sage; 2003.
Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health & Social Care 2020. Kent: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2020.
Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: principles and practices. Health Serv Res 2013;48:2134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
Gaugh HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
NHS England. NHS Mental Health Implementation Plan 2019/20–2023/24. London: NHS England; 2019.
Department of Health. You’re Welcome Quality Criteria: Making Health Services Young People Friendly. London: Department of Health; 2006.
Frith E. Children and Young People’s Mental Health: Time to Deliver (the Report of the Commission on Children and Young People’s Mental Health). London: Education Policy Institute; 2016.
National Children’s Bureau. Making a Difference to Young People’s Lives Through Personalised Care: Mental Health Inequalities and Social Deprivation. London: National Children’s Bureau; 2021.
Hassan SM, Worsley J, Nolan L, Fearon N, Ring A, Shelton J, et al. An exploration of young people’s, parent/carers’, and professionals’ experiences of a voluntary sector organisation operating a Youth Information, Advice, and Counselling (YIAC) model in a disadvantaged area. BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:383. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07800-1
Pajer K, Pastrana C, Gardner W, Sivakumar A, York A. A scoping review of the Choice and Partnership Approach in child and adolescent mental health services. J Child Health Care 2022:136749352210762. https://doi.org/10.1177/13674935221076215
Burn A-M, Vainre M, Humphrey A, Howarth E. Evaluating the CYP-IAPT transformation of child and adolescent mental health services in Cambridgeshire, UK: a qualitative implementation study. Implement Sci Commun 2020;1:89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00078-6
Bartlett NA, Freeze TB. Community schools: new perspectives on the wraparound approach. Exceptionality Educ Int 2018;28:55–81. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v28i2.7765
Pryjmachuk S, Graham T, Haddad M, Tylee A. School nurses’ perspectives on managing mental health problems in children and young people: school nurses and mental health. J Clin Nurs 2012;21:850–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03838.x
Jenkins P. Having confidence in therapeutic work with young people: constraints and challenges to confidentiality. Br J Guid Couns 2010;38:263–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2010.483128
Tierney S, Bivins R, Seers K. Compassion in nursing: solution or stereotype? Nurs Inq 2018;26:e12271. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12271
NHS Benchmarking Network. Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services Workforce: Report for Health Education England. Manchester: NHS Benchmarking Network; 2021.
Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Dukes D, Atkinson S, Williams NJ. Randomized trial of the availability, responsiveness, and continuity (ARC) organizational intervention with community-based mental health programs and clinicians serving youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2012;51:780–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2012.05.010
Glisson C, Hemmelgarn A, Green P, Williams NJ. Randomized trial of the availability, responsiveness and continuity (ARC) organizational intervention for improving youth outcomes in community mental health programs. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2013;52:493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2013.02.005
Glisson C, Williams NJ, Hemmelgarn A, Proctor E, Green P. Aligning organizational priorities with ARC to improve youth mental health service outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol 2016;84:713–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000107
Rocks S, Glogowska M, Stepney M, Tsiachristas A, Fazel M. Introducing a single point of access (SPA) to child and adolescent mental health services in England: a mixed-methods observational study. BMC Health Serv Res 2020;20:623. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05463-4
Pettitt B. Effective Joint Working Between Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and Schools. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills; 2003.
Day L, Blades R, Spence C, Ronicle J. Mental Health Services and Schools Link Pilots: Evaluation Report. London: Department for Education; 2017.
Garland L, Dalzell K, Wolpert M. What Works for Me: The Self-care Approaches of Children and Young People. London: CAMHS Press; 2019.
James K. Remote Mental Health Interventions for Young People: A Rapid Review of the Evidence. London: Youth Access; 2020.
Hollis C, Falconer CJ, Martin JL, Whittington C, Stockton S, Glazebrook C, et al. Digital health interventions for children and young people with mental health problems – a systematic and meta-review. J Child Psychol Psychiatr 2017;58:474–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12663
Liverpool S, Mota CP, Sales CMD, Čuš A, Carletto S, Hancheva C, et al. Engaging children and young people in digital mental health interventions: systematic review of modes of delivery, facilitators, and barriers. J Med Internet Res 2020;22:e16317. https://doi.org/10.2196/16317
Nolte E. How Do We Ensure That Innovation in Health Service Delivery and Organization is Implemented, Sustained and Spread? Policy Brief. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2018.