Dataset Information

Systematic review protocol for facilitators and barriers to integrating health services for traumatic brain injury and mental health or addictions.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

In the most populous province of Canada, one in five adults and one in six students report a lifetime history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). These individuals were also more likely to report elevated psychological distress and use illicit substances compared with those without TBI. The need for integrated health services has been recognised globally, yet efforts to develop more comprehensive and effective care for TBI and mental health and/or addictions (MHA) continue to be challenged by the siloing of the two systems. This protocol is for a systematic review that describes the current types of integrated care for TBI and MHA and identifies the barriers and facilitators to integrating healthcare for these populations.

Methods and analysis

This review will systematically search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertations & Theses Global. References of eligible articles will also be searched for additional relevant studies. The search strategy will include the use of text words and subject headings relevant to the concepts 'TBI,' 'substance abuse, gambling, or mental health,' 'integrated healthcare,' 'barriers and facilitators,' and 'healthcare access.' Two reviewers will independently screen all articles based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria and perform quality assessment on eligible studies. A narrative synthesis will be conducted using the data abstracted by the two reviewers.

Ethics and dissemination

Findings from the systematic review will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at scientific meetings, and summarised for key stakeholders in the field of TBI and/or MHA. This protocol will form a systematic review that holds the potential to impact policy and planning in the development of integrated person-centred care for TBI and MHA and addresses a recognised gap in TBI care.

Trial registration number

CRD42018108343.

SUBMITTER: Chan V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6661659 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review protocol for facilitators and barriers to integrating health services for traumatic brain injury and mental health or addictions.

Chan Vincy V Toccalino Danielle D Colantonio Angela A

BMJ open 20190723 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>In the most populous province of Canada, one in five adults and one in six students report a lifetime history of traumatic brain injury (TBI). These individuals were also more likely to report elevated psychological distress and use illicit substances compared with those without TBI. The need for integrated health services has been recognised globally, yet efforts to develop more comprehensive and effective care for TBI and mental health and/or addictions (MHA) continue to b ...[more]

PMID: 31340961

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health is an integral part of health and well-being and yet health systems have not adequately responded to the burden of mental disorders. Integrating mental health services into primary health care (PHC) is the most viable way of closing the treatment gap and ensuring that people get the mental health care they need. PHC was formally adapted by the World Health Organization (WHO), and they have since invested enormous amounts of resources across the globe to ensure that integration of mental health services into PHC works.MethodsThis review will use the SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) framework approach to identify experiences of mental health integration into PHC; the findings will be reported using the "Best fit" framework synthesis. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) will be searched including other sources like the WHO website and OpenGrey database. Assessment of bias and quality will be done at study level using two separate tools to check for the quality of evidence presented. Data synthesis will take on two synergistic approaches (qualitative and quantitative studies). Synthesizing evidence from countries across the globe will provide useful insights into the experiences of integrating mental health services into PHC and how the barriers and challenges have been handled. The findings will be useful to a wide array of stakeholders involved in the implementation of the mental health integration into PHC.DiscussionThe SPIDER framework has been chosen for this review because of its suitable application to qualitative and mixed methods research and will be used as a guide when selecting articles for inclusion. Data extracted will be synthesized using the "Best fit" framework because it has been used before and proved its suitability in producing new conceptual models for explaining decision-making and possible behaviors. Synthesizing evidence from countries across the globe will provide useful insights into the experiences of integrating mental health services into PHC and how the barriers and challenges have been handled.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016052000.

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of the review was to synthesize evidence of barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into PHC from existing literature. The structure of the review was guided by the SPIDER framework which involves the following: Sample or population of interest-primary care providers (PCPs); Phenomenon of Interest-integration of mental health services into primary health care (PHC); Design-influenced robustness and analysis of the study; Evaluation-outcomes included subjective outcomes (views and attitudes); and Research type-qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.MethodsStudies that described mental health integration in PHC settings, involved primary care providers, and presented barriers/facilitators of mental health integration into PHC were included in the review. The sources of information included PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, the WHO website, and OpenGrey. Assessment of bias and quality was done using two separate tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative checklist and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.ResultsTwenty studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 3353 search results. The most frequently reported barriers to integration of mental health services into PHC were (i) attitudes regarding program acceptability, appropriateness, and credibility; (ii) knowledge and skills; (iii) motivation to change; (iv) management and/or leadership; and (v) financial resources. In order to come up with an actionable approach to addressing the barriers, these factors were further analyzed along a behavior change theory.DiscussionWe have shown that the integration of mental health services into PHC has been carried out by various countries. The analysis from this review provides evidence to inform policy on the existing barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the mental health integration policy option. Not all databases may have been exhausted.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2016 (Registration Number: CRD42016052000 ) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews August 2017.

Project description:IntroductionEarly identification and appropriate treatment of child and adolescent mental health disorders can often be hampered by patchwork services with poorly planned or unclear pathways. The Choice and Partnership Approach (CAPA) is an evidence-based transformational model of community (community-based or outpatient) mental health and addictions services for children and adolescents that aims to better match services to needs and to improve timely access to care. CAPA has been variably implemented across jurisdictions but has not been comprehensively evaluated for its impact on system and client outcomes. Our research question is, 'To what degree does CAPA work, for whom and under what circumstances?'. The purpose of this review is twofold: (1) to gain an understanding of the extent and outcomes of the implementation of CAPA in community mental health and addictions services; and (2) to identify the role of context as it influences the implementation of CAPA and resulting client and system outcomes.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a realist-informed scoping review of the literature related to CAPA in either child and adolescent or adult community mental health and addictions services. Relevant studies, reports and documentation will be identified by searching the following online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, Web of Science, Cochrane, Dissertations Abstracts, NCBI Bookshelf, PubMed Central and the Canadian Health Research Collection. The search strategy was developed by a health sciences library scientist and informed by a multidisciplinary team comprising methodological and content knowledge experts. The search will gather evidence from multiple online databases of peer-reviewed literature and grey literature repositories. All articles will be independently assessed for inclusion by pairs of reviewers. The key themes derived from a thematic analysis of extracted data will be presented in a narrative overview.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics review is not required for this scoping review. The results will be disseminated through meetings with stakeholders (including clients and families, clinicians and decision-makers), conference presentations and peer-reviewed publication. The results of this review will inform an overarching programme of research, policy and quality indicator development to ultimately improve mental health and addictions care and subsequent mental health outcomes for children and adolescents.

Project description:BackgroundThe integration of mental health and social services for people diagnosed with severe mental illness (SMI) has been a key aspect of attempts to reform mental health services in the UK and aims to minimise user and carer distress and confusion arising from service discontinuities. Community mental health teams (CMHTs) are a key component of UK policy for integrated service delivery, but implementing this policy has raised considerable organisational challenges. The aim of this study was to identify and explore facilitators and barriers perceived to influence continuity of care by health and social care professionals working in and closely associated with CMHTs.MethodsThis study employed a survey design utilising in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a proportionate, random sample of 113 health and social care professionals and representatives of voluntary organisations. Participants worked in two NHS Mental Health Trusts in greater London within eight adult CMHTs and their associated acute in-patient wards, six local general practices, and two voluntary organisations.ResultsTeam leadership, decision making, and experiences of teamwork support were facilitators for cross boundary and team continuity; face-to-face communication between teams, managers, general practitioners, and the voluntary sector were facilitators for information continuity. Relational, personal, and longitudinal continuity were facilitated in some local areas by workforce stability. Barriers for cross boundary and team continuity were specific leadership styles and models of decision making, blurred professional role boundaries, generic working, and lack of training for role development. Barriers for relational, personal, and longitudinal continuity were created by inadequate staffing levels, high caseloads, and administrative duties that could limit time spent with users. Incompatibility of information technology systems hindered information continuity. Flexible continuity was challenged by the increasingly complex needs of service users.ConclusionsSubstantive challenges exist in harnessing the benefits of integrated CMHT working to deliver continuity of care. Team support should be prioritised in terms of IT provision linked to a review of current models of administrative support. Investment in education and training for role development, leadership, workforce retention, and skills to meet service users' complex needs are recommended.

Dataset Information

Systematic review protocol for facilitators and barriers to integrating health services for traumatic brain injury and mental health or addictions.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Systematic review protocol for facilitators and barriers to integrating health services for traumatic brain injury and mental health or addictions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure