This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by COOPER, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by COOPER, B.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2003) 183: 105-113
© 2003 The Royal College of Psychiatrists

REVIEW ARTICLE

Evidence-based mental health policy: a critical appraisal

BRIAN COOPER, MD, FRCPsych

Section of Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, London SE5 8AF, UK. E-mail: spjubco{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk

Declaration of interest None.

Background Arguments for and against evidence-based psychiatry have mostly centred on its value for clinical practice and teaching. Now, however, use of the same paradigm in evaluating health care has generated new problems.

Aims To outline the development of evidence-based health care; to summarise the main critiques of this approach; to review the evidence now being employed to evaluate mental health care; and to consider how the evidence base might be improved.

Method The following sources were monitored: publications on evidence-based psychiatry and health care since 1990; reports of randomised trials and meta-analytic reviews to the end of 2002; and official British publications on mental health policy.

Results Although evidence-based health care is now being promulgated as a rational basis for mental health planning in Britain, its contributions to service evaluation have been distinctly modest. Only 10% of clinical trials and meta-analyses have been focused on effectiveness of services, and many reviews proved inconclusive.

Conclusions The current evidence-based approach is overly reliant on meta-analytic reviews, and is more applicable to specific treatments than to the care agencies that control their delivery. A much broader evidence base is called for, extending to studies in primary health care and the evaluation of preventive techniques.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Critical Social PolicyHome page
J. Hopton
The future of critical psychiatry
Critical Social Policy, February 1, 2006; 26(1): 57 - 73.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J Soc WorkHome page
N. Gould
An Inclusive Approach to Knowledge for Mental Health Social Work Practice and Policy
Br. J. Soc. Work, January 1, 2006; 36(1): 109 - 125.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychiatr. Serv.Home page
D. Addington, E. McKenzie, J. Addington, S. Patten, H. Smith, and C. Adair
Performance Measures for Early Psychosis Treatment Services
Psychiatr Serv, December 1, 2005; 56(12): 1570 - 1582.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
P. D McGorry
Evidence based reform of mental health care
BMJ, September 17, 2005; 331(7517): 586 - 587.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. PsychiatryHome page
P. McGORRY, M. NORDENTOFT, and E. SIMONSEN
Introduction to 'Early psychosis: a bridge to the future'
The British Journal of Psychiatry, August 1, 2005; 187(48): s1 - s3.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Psychiatr. Serv.Home page
R. R. Conley, D. L. Kelly, T. J. Lambert, and R. C. Love
Comparison of Clozapine Use in Maryland and in Victoria, Australia
Psychiatr Serv, March 1, 2005; 56(3): 320 - 323.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]