PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to synthesize evidence comparing task-shifting interventions led by general practice nurses and mental health specialists in improving mental health outcomes of adults in primary care.
METHODS: This study used a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: Articles from the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane EBM Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis published between 2000 and 2020 were included.
METHODS: The review was arranged based on the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS: Twelve articles met the eligibility criteria. Eight studies revealed that nurse-led intervention was significantly superior to its comparator. The review identified three major themes: training and supervision, single and collaborative care and psychosocial treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses could be temporarily employed to provide mental health services in the absence of mental health specialists as long as appropriate training and supervision was provided. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias in the studies reviewed and the limited generalisability of their findings.
METHODS: This study used a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
METHODS: Articles from the databases CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane EBM Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis published between 2000 and 2020 were included.
METHODS: The review was arranged based on the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
RESULTS: Twelve articles met the eligibility criteria. Eight studies revealed that nurse-led intervention was significantly superior to its comparator. The review identified three major themes: training and supervision, single and collaborative care and psychosocial treatments.
CONCLUSIONS: Nurses could be temporarily employed to provide mental health services in the absence of mental health specialists as long as appropriate training and supervision was provided. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias in the studies reviewed and the limited generalisability of their findings.
摘要：
目的：该研究旨在综合证据，比较由全科护士和心理健康专家领导的任务转移干预措施在改善初级保健成人心理健康方面的效果。
方法：本研究采用随机对照试验的系统评价。
方法：来自数据库的文章CINAHL，MEDLINE,APAPsycInfo，PubMed,EMBASE,CochraneEBM评论,WebofScience核心合集,包括2000年至2020年发表的ProQuest论文和论文。
方法：审查是根据Cochrane协作指南安排的，并使用系统审查和荟萃分析（PRISMA）的首选报告项目进行报告。
结果：12篇文章符合资格标准。八项研究表明，护士主导的干预明显优于其比较。审查确定了三个主要主题:培训和监督，单一和协作护理和社会心理治疗。
结论：只要提供适当的培训和监督，在没有心理健康专家的情况下，护士可以被临时雇用来提供心理健康服务。由于所审查的研究存在较高的偏倚风险，并且其研究结果的普遍性有限，因此应谨慎解释这一发现。
方法：本研究采用随机对照试验的系统评价。
方法：来自数据库的文章CINAHL，MEDLINE,APAPsycInfo，PubMed,EMBASE,CochraneEBM评论,WebofScience核心合集,包括2000年至2020年发表的ProQuest论文和论文。
方法：审查是根据Cochrane协作指南安排的，并使用系统审查和荟萃分析（PRISMA）的首选报告项目进行报告。
结果：12篇文章符合资格标准。八项研究表明，护士主导的干预明显优于其比较。审查确定了三个主要主题:培训和监督，单一和协作护理和社会心理治疗。
结论：只要提供适当的培训和监督，在没有心理健康专家的情况下，护士可以被临时雇用来提供心理健康服务。由于所审查的研究存在较高的偏倚风险，并且其研究结果的普遍性有限，因此应谨慎解释这一发现。
