↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

8 tweeters


25 Dimensions

Readers on

256 Mendeley
Implementation of treatment guidelines for specialist mental health care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009780.pub3
Pubmed ID

Irene Bighelli, Giovanni Ostuzzi, Francesca Girlanda, Andrea Cipriani, Thomas Becker, Markus Koesters, Corrado Barbui


A huge gap exists between the production of evidence and its uptake in clinical practice settings. To fill this gap, treatment guidelines, based on explicit assessments of the evidence base, are commonly used in several fields of psychiatry, including schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders. However, it remains unclear whether treatment guidelines have any material impact on provider performance and patient outcomes, and how implementation should be conducted to maximise benefit. The primary objective of this review was to examine the efficacy of guideline implementation strategies in improving process outcomes (performance of healthcare providers) and patient outcomes. We also explored which components of different guideline implementation strategies could influence them. We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Register (March 2012 and August 2015), as well as references of included studies. Studies that examined schizophrenia-spectrum disorders to compare guideline implementation strategies with usual care or to assess the comparative efficacy of different guideline implementation strategies. Review authors worked independently and in duplicate to critically appraise records from 990 studies; six individual studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the six included studies, significant heterogeneity was found in the focus of the guideline, target of the intervention, implementation strategy, and outcome measures, so meta-analysis was carried out for antipsychotic co-prescribing only. This review now includes six studies, with a total of 1727 participants. Of the six included studies, practitioner impact was assessed in four. Overall, risk of bias was rated as low or unclear, and all evidence in the 'Summary of findings' tables was graded as low or very low quality. Meta-analysis revealed that a combination of several guideline dissemination and implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals did not reduce antipsychotic co-prescribing in schizophrenia outpatients (2 RCTs, N = 1082, RR 1.10 CI 0.99 to 1.23; corrected for cluster design: N = 310, RR 0.97, CI 0.75 to 1.25, very low-quality evidence). One trial, which studied a nurse-led intervention aimed at promoting cardiovascular disease screening, found a significant effect in the proportion of people receiving screening (Framingham score: N = 110, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.87), although in the analysis corrected for cluster design, the effect was no longer statistically significant (N = 38, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.03, very low-quality evidence).One trial reported the patient outcomes of global state, satisfaction with care, treatment adherence, and drug attitude; no effect between treatments was seen. Quality of life was not reported by any of the studies.One trial, which studied the use of re-written guideline text compared to original text, did not find a significant effect on staff receiving training (N = 68, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, low-quality evidence), staff receiving supervision (N = 68, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.17, low-quality evidence), or staff providing psychological interventions (N = 68, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.18, low-quality evidence).Regarding participant outcomes, only one trial assessed the efficacy of a shared decision-making implementation strategy and found no impact on psychopathology, satisfaction with care, or drug attitude. Another single trial studied a multifaceted intervention to promote medication adherence and found no effect on adherence rates. Considering the available evidence, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. The preliminary pattern of evidence suggests that uncertainty remains about clinically meaningful and sustainable effects of treatment guidelines on patient outcomes and how best to implement such guidelines for maximal benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 255 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 16%
Student > Bachelor 36 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 11%
Researcher 25 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 58 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 16%
Psychology 31 12%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Other 30 12%
Unknown 70 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 February 2017.
All research outputs
of 16,578,007 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 394,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,578,007 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 394,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.