Dataset Information

Digital Peer Support Mental Health Interventions for People With a Lived Experience of a Serious Mental Illness: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Peer support is recognized globally as an essential recovery service for people with mental health conditions. With the influx of digital mental health services changing the way mental health care is delivered, peer supporters are increasingly using technology to deliver peer support. In light of these technological advances, there is a need to review and synthesize the emergent evidence for peer-supported digital health interventions for adults with mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to identify and review the evidence of digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. METHODS:This systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1946 and December 2018 that examined digital peer support interventions for people with a lived experience of a serious mental illness. Additional articles were found by searching the reference lists from the 27 articles that met the inclusion criteria and a Google Scholar search in June 2019. Participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) criteria were used to assess study eligibility. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and reviewed all full-text articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved. All included studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Methodological Quality Rating Scale. RESULTS:A total of 30 studies (11 randomized controlled trials, 2 quasiexperimental, 15 pre-post designs, and 2 qualitative studies) were included that reported on 24 interventions. Most of the studies demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of peer-to-peer networks, peer-delivered interventions supported with technology, and use of asynchronous and synchronous technologies. CONCLUSIONS:Digital peer support interventions appear to be feasible and acceptable, with strong potential for clinical effectiveness. However, the field is in the early stages of development and requires well-powered efficacy and clinical effectiveness trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42020139037; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID= 139037.

SUBMITTER: Fortuna KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7165313 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Digital Peer Support Mental Health Interventions for People With a Lived Experience of a Serious Mental Illness: Systematic Review.

Fortuna Karen L KL Naslund John A JA LaCroix Jessica M JM Bianco Cynthia L CL Brooks Jessica M JM Zisman-Ilani Yaara Y Muralidharan Anjana A Deegan Patricia P

JMIR mental health 20200403 4

<h4>Background</h4>Peer support is recognized globally as an essential recovery service for people with mental health conditions. With the influx of digital mental health services changing the way mental health care is delivered, peer supporters are increasingly using technology to deliver peer support. In light of these technological advances, there is a need to review and synthesize the emergent evidence for peer-supported digital health interventions for adults with mental health conditions.< ...[more]

PMID: 32243256

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPeer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status.Selection criteriaWe selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse).Data collection and analysisThe authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes.Authors' conclusionsCurrently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Project description:BackgroundPeople with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer.ObjectivesTo review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studiesSelection criteriaWe planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information.Data collection and analysisThe review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review.Main resultsWe did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible.Authors' conclusionsPeople with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

Project description:BackgroundPeer workers support individuals experiencing mental health challenges by drawing on their shared lived experience. Peer support has become increasingly popular for young people with anxiety and depression, but the evidence base is unclear. This systematic review aimed to understand the effectiveness of peer support for youth depression and anxiety (either primary or comorbid), and to understand in which contexts, for whom, and why peer support works.MethodsA systematic search was conducted with the Orygen Evidence Finder, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo from January 1980 to July 2022. Controlled trials of interventions to improve mental health in young people (mean age 14-24), delivered by a peer worker with lived experienced of mental health challenges were included. Outcomes related to depression or anxiety were extracted and descriptive synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity of studies. Study quality was rated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme; reporting adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials with 2,003 participants were included, with seven undertaken in high income countries. One targeted depression and anxiety, two stigma-distress (any mental disorder), one first episode psychosis, four studies preventing eating disorders and one drug misuse. One study successfully reduced anxiety and depression, another reduced depression only, four reported reductions in negative affect, with the final three measuring, but not having a significant impact on depression. Study quality was rated as 'good' overall.DiscussionDespite the uptake of youth peer support globally, there is limited evidence from controlled trials of the effect of peer support-related interventions on anxiety and depression. There is some effect on negative affect, especially for university students. Further rigorously designed trials of peer delivered interventions for young people need to be conducted with a focus on understanding the mechanisms of action underpinning peer support.

Project description:ObjectiveTo review recent published trials of nutrition and dietary interventions for people with serious mental illness; to assess their effectiveness in improving metabolic syndrome risk factors.Study designSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions with a nutrition/diet-related component delivered to people with serious mental illness, published 1 January 2010 - 6 September 2021. Primary outcomes were weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Secondary outcomes were total serum cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglyceride, and blood glucose levels.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. In addition, reference lists of relevant publications were examined for further additional studies.Data synthesisTwenty-five studies encompassing 26 intervention arms were included in our analysis. Eight studies were at low or some risk of bias, seventeen were deemed to be at high risk. Eight of seventeen intervention arms found statistically significant intervention effects on weight, ten of 24 on BMI, and seven of seventeen on waist circumference. The pooled effects of nutrition interventions on metabolic syndrome risk factors were statistically non-significant. However, we identified small size effects on weight for interventions delivered by dietitians (five studies; 262 intervention, 258 control participants; standardised mean difference [SMD], -0.28; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.04) and interventions consisting of individual sessions only (three studies; 141 intervention, 134 control participants; SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.06).ConclusionsWe found only limited evidence for nutrition interventions improving metabolic syndrome risk factors in people with serious mental illness. However, they may be more effective when delivered on an individual basis or by dietitians.Prospero registrationCRD42021235979 (prospective).

Project description:BackgroundSymptoms of serious mental illness are multidimensional and often interact in complex ways. Generative models offer value in elucidating the underlying relationships that characterise these networks of symptoms.AimsIn this paper we use generative models to find unique interactions of schizophrenia symptoms as experienced on a moment-by-moment basis.MethodSelf-reported mood, anxiety and psychosis symptoms, self-reported measurements of sleep quality and social function, cognitive assessment, and smartphone touch screen data from two assessments modelled after the Trail Making A and B tests were collected with a digital phenotyping app for 47 patients in active treatment for schizophrenia over a 90-day period. Patients were retrospectively divided up into various non-exclusive subgroups based on measurements of depression, anxiety, sleep duration, cognition and psychosis symptoms taken in the clinic. Associated transition probabilities for the patient cohort and for the clinical subgroups were calculated using state transitions between adjacent 3-day timesteps of pairwise survey domains.ResultsThe three highest probabilities for associated transitions across all patients were anxiety-inducing mood (0.357, P < 0.001), psychosis-inducing mood (0.276, P < 0.001), and anxiety-inducing poor sleep (0.268, P < 0.001). These transition probabilities were compared against a validation set of 17 patients from a pilot study, and no significant differences were found. Unique symptom networks were found for clinical subgroups.ConclusionsUsing a generative model using digital phenotyping data, we show that certain symptoms of schizophrenia may play a role in elevating other schizophrenia symptoms in future timesteps. Symptom networks show that it is feasible to create clinically interpretable models that reflect the unique symptom interactions of psychosis-spectrum illness. These results offer a framework for researchers capturing temporal dynamics, for clinicians seeking to move towards preventative care, and for patients to better understand their lived experience.

Dataset Information

Digital Peer Support Mental Health Interventions for People With a Lived Experience of a Serious Mental Illness: Systematic Review.

Publications

Digital Peer Support Mental Health Interventions for People With a Lived Experience of a Serious Mental Illness: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets