Dataset Information

Disability and schizophrenia: a systematic review of experienced psychosocial difficulties.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Schizophrenia is a significantly disabling disease that affects all major areas of life. There is a lack of comprehensive synthesis of research findings on the full extent of psychosocial difficulties (PSDs) experienced by people living with schizophrenia. This paper provides a systematic review of the literature concerning PSDs and their associated factors in schizophrenia. PSDs were conceptualized in accordance with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as disabilities, in particular impairments of mental functions, activity limitations and participation restrictions.

Methods

An electronic search using MEDLINE and PsychINFO plus a manual search of the literature was performed for qualitative and longitudinal studies published in English between 2005 and 2010 that examined PSDs in persons with schizophrenia. The ICF was used as a conceptual framework.

Results

A total of 104 papers were included. The most frequent PSDs addressed in the literature were not specific ones, directly linkable to the ICF categories of mental functions, activity limitations or participation restrictions, but broad areas of psychosocial functioning, such as psychopathological symptoms (53% of papers) or global disability and functioning (37%). Among mental functions, the most extensively studied were cognitive functions (27%) and emotional functions (27%). Within the domain of activities and participation, the most widely investigated were difficulties in relationships with others (31%) and employment (20%). Of the factors associated with the intensity or course of PSDs, the most commonly identified were treatment modalities (56%), psychopathological symptoms (26%), and socio-demographic variables (24%). Medication tended to improve the most relevant PSD, but at the same time was the only consistently reported determinant of onset of PSDs (emerging as unwanted side-effects).

Conclusions

The present review illustrates the remarkably broad scope and diversity of psychosocial areas affected in schizophrenia and shows how these areas are interconnected and how they interact with contextual factors. The need for a shift in focus of schizophrenia research is suggested--from an excessive reliance on global measures of psychopathology and disability for defining outcomes to the creation of profiles of specific PSDs that have a more direct bearing on the disabling experience and real-world functioning of patients and can serve to guide interventions and monitoring over time.

SUBMITTER: Switaj P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3539983 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis umbrella systematic review examined the effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers of interventions for social, community and civic participation for adults on the autism spectrum, or with intellectual or psychosocial disability.Data sourcesEight databases were searched to identify eligible reviews defined by the: Sample (≥50% adults on the autism spectrum or with intellectual or psychosocial disability), Phenomena of Interest (interventions in community settings that aimed to improve social, community or civic participation, or capacity to participate), Design (any), Evaluation (any method that evaluated impacts on participation or capacity to participate), and Research type (reviews as journal articles, dissertations or in grey literature, in English, published 2010-2020).Review methodsRapid review methods were used. One researcher screened 27,890 records and 788 potentially eligible full texts. A second reviewer independently screened 20% of records, and ambiguous full text publications. Study quality was extracted, and review quality was assessed with the Assessing Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Data from 522 studies in 57 eligible systematic reviews were extracted for narrative synthesis. The Corrected Covered Area (CCA) was calculated to indicate overlap between reviews.ResultsThere was a pooled sample of 28,154 study participants, predominantly from studies in North America, the UK and Europe. There was very low overlap between reviews (CCA = 0.3%). Reviews were predominantly low quality: 77.2% of reviews met <50% of AMSTAR criteria. Most studies were low (45.4%) or moderate (38.3%) quality. Three broad intervention categories improved participation, inclusion and belonging outcomes: (1) interventions to help people identify and connect with participation opportunities (e.g., person centred planning); (2) participation opportunities or activities (e.g., joining a community group, sports or outdoor activities, or arts-based activities); and (3) supports to build skills and capacity to participate socially and in the community.ConclusionsThe evidence highlighted that improved social and community participation requires purposeful strategies that identify meaningful participation preferences (e.g., where, when, how, and with whom) and provide support to build capacity or enable ongoing participation. Community capacity building, peer support and advocacy may also be needed to make the community more accessible, and to enable people to exercise genuine choice.

Project description:IntroductionDespite the recent global mental health movement of the transition from hospital-centred to integrated community-based services, comprehensive evidence of psychosocial interventions focusing on community-dwelling individuals with schizophrenia is still lacking. To overcome this gap in the current knowledge, we will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of all types of psychosocial interventions for community-dwelling (non-hospitalised) individuals with schizophrenia when compared with non-active control conditions (eg, treatment as usual).Methods and analysisThis study protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. By March 2022, the following sources will have been searched, without restrictions for language or publication period: Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will also try to identify other potentially eligible studies by searching the reference lists of included studies, other relevant systematic reviews and grey literature. All relevant randomised controlled trials from both high-income and low-income to middle-income countries will be allowed. Two independent reviewers will conduct the selection/screening of studies, data extraction and methodological quality assessment of included studies. The primary outcomes are quality of life and psychiatric hospital admission. Standard pairwise meta-analyses with a random-effects model will be conducted. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess the robustness of the findings. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomised Trials. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study. The study findings will be disseminated through conference presentations as well as peer-reviewed publications.Prospero registration numberCRD42021266187.

Project description:BackgroundThe development of effective treatments for use by non-specialists is listed among the top research priorities for improving the lives of people with mental illness worldwide. The purpose of this review is to appraise which interventions for children with intellectual disabilities or lower-functioning autism spectrum disorders delivered by non-specialist care providers in community settings produce benefits when compared to either a no-treatment control group or treatment-as-usual comparator.Methods and findingsWe systematically searched electronic databases through 24 June 2013 to locate prospective controlled studies of psychosocial interventions delivered by non-specialist providers to children with intellectual disabilities or lower-functioning autism spectrum disorders. We screened 234 full papers, of which 34 articles describing 29 studies involving 1,305 participants were included. A majority of the studies included children exclusively with a diagnosis of lower-functioning autism spectrum disorders (15 of 29, 52%). Fifteen of twenty-nine studies (52%) were randomized controlled trials and just under half of all effect sizes (29 of 59, 49%) were greater than 0.50, of which 18 (62%) were statistically significant. For behavior analytic interventions, the best outcomes were shown for development and daily skills; cognitive rehabilitation, training, and support interventions were found to be most effective for improving developmental outcomes, and parent training interventions to be most effective for improving developmental, behavioral, and family outcomes. We also conducted additional subgroup analyses using harvest plots. Limitations include the studies' potential for performance bias and that few were conducted in lower- and middle-income countries.ConclusionsThe findings of this review support the delivery of psychosocial interventions by non-specialist providers to children who have intellectual disabilities or lower-functioning autism spectrum disorders. Given the scarcity of specialists in many low-resource settings, including many lower- and middle-income countries, these findings may provide guidance for scale-up efforts for improving outcomes for children with developmental disorders or lower-functioning autism spectrum disorders.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42012002641

Project description:BackgroundThere is consensus that the treatment of schizophrenia should combine anti-psychotic medication and psychosocial interventions in order to address complex social, economic and health needs. It is recommended that family therapy or support; community-based rehabilitation; and/or self-help and support groups should be provided for people with schizophrenia in low and middle-income countries. The effectiveness of community-based psychosocial interventions in these settings is unclear.MethodsStudies evaluating community-based psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia were identified through database searching up to April 2016. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared the intervention group with a control group receiving treatment as usual including medication. Only studies set in low and middle-income countries were included. Random effects meta-analyses were performed separately for each intervention type.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials in five middle-income countries were identified, with a total of 1580 participants. The content of included interventions varied from single-faceted psychoeducational interventions, to multi-component rehabilitation-focused interventions, to case management interventions. A third of the included studies did not incorporate any community involvement in the intervention. The quality of evidence was often low. Amongst the seven studies that reported on symptom severity up to 18 months post intervention, the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) across all intervention types was 0.95 (95% CI 0.28, 1.61; P 0.005; I 2 = 95%; n = 862), representing a strong effect. A strong effect on symptom severity remained after excluding two studies with a high risk of bias (SMD 0.80; 95% CI 0.07, 1.53; P 0.03; I 2 = 94%; n = 676). Community-based psychosocial interventions may also have beneficial impacts on functioning (SMD 1.12; 95% CI 0.25, 2.00; P 0.01; I 2 = 94%; n = 511) and reducing hospital readmissions (SMD 0.68; 95% CI 0.27, 1.09; P 0.001; I2 = 33%; n = 167).ConclusionThe limited evidence from low and middle-income countries supports the feasibility and effectiveness of community-based psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia, even in the absence of community mobilisation. Community-based psychosocial interventions should therefore be provided in these settings as an adjuvant service in addition to facility-based care for people with schizophrenia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE:This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS:A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS:A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS:This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.