Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hunt GE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6906736 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Psychosocial interventions for people with both severe mental illness and substance misuse.
Hunt Glenn E GE Siegfried Nandi N Morley Kirsten K Brooke-Sumner Carrie C Cleary Michelle M
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20191212
<h4>Background</h4>Even low levels of substance misuse by people with a severe mental illness can have detrimental effects.<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions for reduction in substance use in people with a serious mental illness compared with standard care.<h4>Search methods</h4>The Information Specialist of the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group (CSG) searched the CSG Trials Register (2 May 2018), which is based on regular searches of major medical and scientific d ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6491096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSevere mental disorders - such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and substance use disorders - exert a negative impact not only on affected people but also on their carers. To support carers of people with severe mental disorders, several psychosocial interventions have been developed.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess whether psychosocial interventions for carers of persons with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or substance use disorders produce benefit/harm with respect to a series of outcomes - including subjective and objective burden, depressive symptoms, well-being/quality of life, sleep, skills/knowledge, self-efficacy, physical health - as compared to standard support/support as usual or other control conditions.ResultsIn carers of persons with schizophrenia, psychoeducational interventions were associated with significant improvement in personal burden, well-being, and knowledge about the illness; and a supportive-educational intervention with an improvement in personal burden. In carers of persons with bipolar disorder, psychoeducational interventions were associated with significant improvement in personal burden and depressive symptoms; family-led supportive interventions with an improvement in family burden; family-focused intervention and online "mi.spot" intervention with a significant reduction in depressive symptoms. Psychosocial interventions used for carers of persons with substance use disorders were found to be overall effective on the level of well-being, but the low number of trials did not allow detection of differences between the various psychosocial interventions.ConclusionsThe quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate, suggesting the need for further better-quality research.
| S-EPMC10755580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:In North America and internationally, efforts have been made to reduce the gaps between knowledge of psychosocial evidence-based practices (EBPs) and the delivery of such services in routine mental health practice. Part 2 of this review identifies key issues for stakeholders to consider when implementing comprehensive psychosocial EBPs for people with severe mental illness (SMI). METHOD:A rapid review of the literature was conducted. Searches were carried out in MEDLINE and PsycINFO for reports published between 1990 and 2012 using key words related to SMI, and psychosocial practices and implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to structure findings according to key domains and constructs known to influence the implementation process. RESULTS:The CFIR allowed us to identify 17 issues reflecting more than 30 constructs of the framework that were viewed as influential to the process of implementing evidence-based psychosocial interventions for people with SMI. Issues arising at different levels of influence (intervention, individual, organizational, and system) and at all phases of the implementation process (planning, engagement, execution, and evaluation) were found to play important roles in implementation. CONCLUSION:The issues identified in this review should be taken into consideration by stakeholders when engaging in efforts to promote uptake of new psychosocial EBPs and to widen the range of effective psychosocial services available in routine mental health care.
| S-EPMC4079132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.
| S-EPMC4161493 | biostudies-other
Project description:Interventions: We are assessing the impact of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) by comparing participation rates of people with and without Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and looking at health outcomes. We will be using data collected from Aug 2006 - latest available.
We are linking data using Commonwealth data (NBCSP, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Cancer Database & the National Death Index) to compare bowel cancer screening participation in people with SMI to those from the general population. We will additionally link these to the NSW cancer registry and hospital data to examine care pathways from diagnosis through treatment and end-of-life care.
We will also conduct a consultation with people with experience of SMI and Colorectal cancer and people with SMI in peer support roles who can provide their perspective on the barriers faced by people with SMI to gaining timely screening, diagnosis and optimal care.
These participants will be recruited from New South Wales consumer organisations and organisations with a strong focus on provision of peer support and advocacy. We will use a semi structured group interview schedule to facilitate discussion of a single focus group of 15 people. The group will consist of both people with lived experience who have direct experience of bowel cancer (n=10), as well as other people with lived experience who have supported people in this situation – as peer support workers or in other consumer advocacy/support roles (n=5). We will use this qualitative arm of the study to further develop our understanding of the quantitative findings. The consultation will also develop ideas on how to improve access to care.
Primary outcome(s): Participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program assessed using data from the NBCSP.[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006) (the date of commencement of the NBCSP) or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later.. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and were recorded in the administrative data. This will be assessed when we receive the data.];Colonoscopy rates assessed using data from the NBCSP [Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until colonoscopy. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.];Cancer diagnosis using data from the Australian Cancer Database[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until cancer diagnosis. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.]
Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Longitudinal;Selection: Case control;Timing: Both
| 2470998 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Providing comprehensive care to people with severe mental illness (SMI) involves moving beyond pharmacological treatment and ensuring access to a wide range of evidence-based psychosocial services. Numerous initiatives carried out in North America and internationally have promoted the widespread adoption of such services. Objectives of this rapid review were 3-fold: to identify these implementation initiatives, to describe the implementation strategies used to promote the uptake of psychosocial services, and to identify key issues related to the implementation of a broad range of services. Part 1 presents findings for objectives 1 and 2 of the review. METHOD:Searches were carried out in MEDLINE and PsycINFO for reports published between 1990 and 2012 using key words related to SMI, psychosocial practices, and implementation. Contacts with experts and reference list and reverse citation searches were also conducted. RESULTS:Fifty-five articles were retained that identified more than a dozen major North American and international implementation initiatives. Initiative leaders employed diverse strategies at the planning, execution, and evaluation stages of the implementation process. Stakeholder meetings, training, ongoing consultation, and quality or fidelity monitoring were strategies consistently adopted across most initiatives, whereas theory-based approaches and organizational- and system-level strategies were less frequently described. CONCLUSION:Insights from the initiatives identified in this review can help guide future efforts to implement a broad range of psychosocial services for people with SMI. However, such efforts will also need to be informed by more rigorous, theory-based studies of implementation processes and outcomes.
| S-EPMC4079135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelf-management is intended to empower individuals in their recovery by providing the skills and confidence they need to take active steps in recognising and managing their own health problems. Evidence supports such interventions in a range of long-term physical health conditions, but a recent systematic synthesis is not available for people with severe mental health problems.AimsTo evaluate the effectiveness of self-management interventions for adults with severe mental illness (SMI).MethodA systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. A meta-analysis of symptomatic, relapse, recovery, functioning and quality of life outcomes was conducted, using RevMan.ResultsA total of 37 trials were included with 5790 participants. From the meta-analysis, self-management interventions conferred benefits in terms of reducing symptoms and length of admission, and improving functioning and quality of life both at the end of treatment and at follow-up. Overall the effect size was small to medium. The evidence for self-management interventions on readmissions was mixed. However, self-management did have a significant effect compared with control on subjective measures of recovery such as hope and empowerment at follow-up, and self-rated recovery and self-efficacy at both time points.ConclusionThere is evidence that the provision of self-management interventions alongside standard care improves outcomes for people with SMI. Self-management interventions should form part of the standard package of care provided to people with SMI and should be prioritised in guidelines: research on best methods of implementing such interventions in routine practice is needed.Declaration of interestsNone.
| S-EPMC6499726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have indicated that persons with co-occurring mental health and substance use problems can benefit by attending dual-focus mutual aid groups. However, to date, a trial to test the efficacy of these groups has not been published.MethodThis study randomly assigned 203 substance misusing clients attending a mental health or dual-diagnosis facility to either a dual-focus 12-step group (Double Trouble in Recovery; DTR) or a waiting list control group. Participants were followed for 3-6 months. The primary outcome was substance use (days used in the past 30 with saliva testing to detect under-reporting); secondary outcomes included psychiatric medication adherence, attendance at traditional (single-focus) 12-step meetings (e.g., AA/NA); and improvement in mental health and substance use problems (quality of life). Multilevel model (MLM) regression was used to analyze the nested effect of participants within 8 facilities (7 in New York City and 1 in Michigan). Regression imputation was used to adjust for drug use under-reporting.ResultsAt follow-up 79% of the subjects were interviewed. In intent to treat analysis, DTR subjects compared with control subjects used alcohol (p=.03) and any substances (p=.02) on fewer days. DTR compared with control subjects were also more likely to rate themselves as experiencing better mental health and fewer substance use problems (p=.001). There were no effects for DTR on drug use only, medication adherence or NA/AA attendance.ConclusionFindings reported in previous studies on the association between exposure to DTR and reductions in substance use were partially supported in this efficacy trial.
| S-EPMC4261224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing attention to palliative care for the general population has led to the development of various evidence-based or consensus-based tools and interventions. However, specific tools and interventions are needed for people with severe mental illness (SMI) who have a life-threatening illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize the scientific evidence on tools and interventions in palliative care for this group.MethodsSystematic searches were done in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase databases, supplemented by reference tracking, searches on the internet with free text terms, and consultations with experts to identify relevant literature. Empirical studies with qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods designs concerning tools and interventions for use in palliative care for people with SMI were included. Methodological quality was assessed using a critical appraisal instrument for heterogeneous study designs. Stepwise study selection and the assessment of methodological quality were done independently by two review authors.ResultsFour studies were included, reporting on a total of two tools and one multi-component intervention. One study concerned a tool to identify the palliative phase in patients with SMI. This tool appeared to be usable only in people with SMI with a cancer diagnosis. Furthermore, two related studies focused on a tool to involve people with SMI in discussions about medical decisions at the end of life. This tool was assessed as feasible and usable in the target group. One other study concerned the Dutch national Care Standard for palliative care, including a multi-component intervention. The Palliative Care Standard also appeared to be feasible and usable in a mental healthcare setting, but required further tailoring to suit this specific setting. None of the included studies investigated the effects of the tools and interventions on quality of life or quality of care.ConclusionsStudies of palliative care tools and interventions for people with SMI are scarce. The existent tools and intervention need further development and should be tailored to the care needs and settings of these people. Further research is needed on the feasibility, usability and effects of tools and interventions for palliative care for people with SMI.
| S-EPMC6446277 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:People with serious mental illness (SMI) and/or substance use disorders (SUDs) have an elevated risk of premature mortality compared with the general population. This has been attributed to higher rates of chronic illness among these individuals, but also to inequities in healthcare access and treatment. Integrated care has the potential to improve the health of people with SMI/SUDs. The aims of this scoping review are to: (1) identify empirical investigations of interventions designed to integrate care for people with SMI/SUDs; (2) describe the underlying theories, models and frameworks of integrated care that informed their development; and (3) determine the degree to which interventions address dimensions of a comprehensive and validated framework of integrated care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Guidelines for best practice and reporting of scoping reviews will be followed using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping review checklist. An iterative and systematic search of peer-reviewed publications reporting empirical research findings will be conducted. This literature will be identified by searching five databases: Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase (Ovid) and Scopus. The search will be restricted to articles published between January 2000 and April 2019. Two reviewers will independently screen publications in two successive stages of title and abstract screening, followed by full-text screening of eligible publications. A tabular summary and narrative synthesis will be completed using data extracted from each included study. A framework synthesis will also be conducted, with descriptions of interventions mapped against a theoretical framework of integrated care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review will identify the extent and nature of empirical investigations evaluating interventions to integrate care for people with SMI/SUDs. Ethical approval was not required. A team of relevant stakeholders, including people with lived experience of mental health conditions, has been established. This team will be engaged throughout the review and will ensure that the findings are widely disseminated. Dissemination will include publication of the review in a peer-reviewed journal. The review protocol has been registered through Open Science Framework and can be accessed at https://osf.io/njkph/.
| S-EPMC6830830 | biostudies-literature