Review and analysis of the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program.

Objective The aim of the present study was to review and synthesise research on the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program (MHNIP) to ascertain the benefits and limitations of this initiative for people with mental illness, general practitioners, mental health nurses and the wider community. Methods An electronic and manual search was made of the research literature for MHNIP in May 2017. Features of studies, including cohorts and findings, were tabulated and cross-study patterns in program processes and outcomes were closely compared. Results Seventeen reports of primary research data have been released. Triangulation of data from different cohorts, regions and design show that the program has been successful on the primary objectives of increased access to primary mental health care, and has received positive feedback from all major stakeholders. Although the program has been broadly beneficial to consumer health, there are inequities in access for people with mental illness. Conclusions The MHNIP greatly benefits the health of people with mental illness. Larger and more representative sampling of consumers is needed, as well as intensive case studies to provide a more comprehensive and effective understanding of the benefits and limitations of the program as it evolves with the establishment of primary health networks. What is known about the topic? The MHNIP is designed to increase access to mental health care in primary care settings such as general practice clinics. Studies have reported favourable views about the program. However, research is limited and further investigation is required to demonstrate the strengths and limitations of the program. What does this paper add? All studies reviewed reported that the MHNIP had positive implications for people with severe and persistent mental illness. Qualitative research has been most prevalent for mental health nurse views and research on Health of the Nation Outcome Scale scores for recipients of the program. There is more research on system dimensions than on person-centred care. Mental health consumers, carers and families have been neglected in the establishment, engagement and evaluation of the MHNIP. What are the implications for practitioners? A more systematic, national-level research program into the MHNIP is required that is centred more on the experiences of people with mental illness.

[1]  H. Wells,et al.  Refocusing on physical health: Community psychiatric nurses' perceptions of using enhanced health checks for people with severe mental illness. , 2016, International journal of mental health nursing.

[2]  P. McGorry,et al.  Stepwise expansion of evidence‐based care is needed for mental health reform , 2016, The Medical journal of Australia.

[3]  P. Corrigan Lessons learned from unintended consequences about erasing the stigma of mental illness , 2016, World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association.

[4]  N. Sands,et al.  Mental health consumers' perceptions of quality of life and mental health care. , 2015, Nursing & health sciences.

[5]  T. Meehan,et al.  Impact of the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Programme on patient functioning. , 2015, International journal of mental health nursing.

[6]  A. Cashin,et al.  Values and valuing mental health nursing in primary care: what is wrong with the ‘before and on behalf of’ model? , 2014 .

[7]  R. Stanton,et al.  Utilization of a cardiometabolic health nurse – a novel strategy to manage comorbid physical and mental illness , 2014, Journal of comorbidity.

[8]  R. Lakeman,et al.  Mental health nurses in primary care: quantitative outcomes of the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program. , 2014, Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing.

[9]  A. Cashin,et al.  Released potential: a qualitative study of the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program in Australia. , 2014, International journal of mental health nursing.

[10]  R. Senior Values and valuing mental health nursing in primary care: what is wrong with the ‘before and on behalf of’ model? , 2013 .

[11]  R. Lakeman Mental health nurses in primary care: qualitative outcomes of the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program. , 2013, International journal of mental health nursing.

[12]  T. Meehan,et al.  Clinical profile of people referred to mental health nurses under the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program. , 2013, International journal of mental health nursing.

[13]  C. Platania‐Phung,et al.  Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program: facilitating physical health care for people with mental illness? , 2013, International journal of mental health nursing.

[14]  T. Meehan,et al.  Mental health nurses working in primary care: Perceptions of general practitioners. , 2013, International journal of mental health nursing.

[15]  T. Meehan,et al.  The Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program: reactions of general practitioners and their patients. , 2013, Australian Health Review.

[16]  D. Rose Service user views and service user research in the Journal of Mental Health , 2011, Journal of mental health.

[17]  J. Mills,et al.  Mental health nurses employed in Australian general practice: dimensions of time and space. , 2011, International journal of mental health nursing.

[18]  B. Happell,et al.  The Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program: desirable knowledge, skills and attitudes from the perspective of nurses. , 2011, Journal of clinical nursing.

[19]  B. Happell,et al.  Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program: contributing to positive client outcomes. , 2010, International journal of mental health nursing.

[20]  B. Happell,et al.  The Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program: The Benefits from a Client Perspective , 2010, Issues in mental health nursing.

[21]  M. Olasoji,et al.  The advent of mental health nurses in Australian general practice , 2010, Contemporary nurse.

[22]  College Affairs , 2008 .