Dataset Information

Non-pharmacological strategies for self-directed and interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness: a rapid overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Self-directed and interpersonal violence among people with severe mental illness has become a health priority. Though non-pharmacological interventions have been investigated, to our knowledge, no summary of all systematic reviews on this topic has been reported. We will conduct a rapid overview of reviews to synthesise evidence available by identifying systematic reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for self-directed or interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness.

Methods and analysis

This is a protocol for a rapid overview of reviews. The overview will include any systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster RCTs that examine the effect of non-pharmacological interventions on self-directed or interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness. This protocol applies the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Protocols, the criteria for conducting overviews of reviews in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the criteria for the Cochrane Rapid Reviews. To identify studies, a search will be performed in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through the Cochrane Library and the Epistemonikos database of systematic reviews. The searches date from inception to September 2020. The study selection process will be described using a PRISMA flow diagram, we will assess the quality of evidence in systematic reviews included and the quality of the systematic reviews themselves and the main results will be summarised in categories to provide a map of the evidence available.

Ethics and dissemination

No patients or other participants will be involved in this study. The results will be presented at mental health conferences and for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Registration details

The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/myzd9/).

SUBMITTER: Moreno-Calvete MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7802727 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-pharmacological strategies for self-directed and interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness: a rapid overview of systematic reviews.

Moreno-Calvete Maria Concepcion MC Ballesteros-Rodriguez Francisco Javier FJ

BMJ open 20210111 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Self-directed and interpersonal violence among people with severe mental illness has become a health priority. Though non-pharmacological interventions have been investigated, to our knowledge, no summary of all systematic reviews on this topic has been reported. We will conduct a rapid overview of reviews to synthesise evidence available by identifying systematic reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for self-directed or interpersonal violence in people with severe m ...[more]

PMID: 33431494

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionViolence committed by people with mental illness has implications for mental health policy and clinical practice. Several strategies to reduce the risk of aggressive and violent behaviour have been proposed, and these include non-pharmacological interventions. There is, however, a need to identify which of these interventions are effective, and as a first step, we will conduct a scoping review to identify non-pharmacological interventions for self-directed or interpersonal violence in adults with severe mental illness across different conditions and settings.Methods and analysisThis is a scoping review protocol. The review will include any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs that assess the efficacy of interventions on self-directed or interpersonal violence with no restrictions on the control treatment in people with severe mental illness in any setting. No restrictions will be applied in terms of language or date of publication. To identify studies, a search will be performed in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE (via PubMed), PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, Epistemonikos and databases of clinical trials. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be followed for reporting the findings, including the use of a PRISMA flow diagram. A standardised form will be used to extract data from studies. The findings will be classified using conceptual categories that will be specified in detail and a descriptive summary of the main results will be created. Moreover, it will be assessed whether the studies identified have been included in systematic reviews or meta-analyses and the results will be used to generate a conceptual map.Ethics and disseminationNo patients or other participants will be involved in this study. We will prepare a manuscript for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and the results will be presented at mental health conferences.

Project description:Objective: The resource group method intends to promote patients' agency and self-management and to organize meaningful partnerships between patients and their informal and formal support systems. The aim of this study was to enhance the understanding of interpersonal dynamics that arise within resource groups for people with severe mental illness. Insight into these unfolding processes would enable improved implementation of the resource group method so that it contributes to establishing a positive social environment, which can lead to more enduring recovery. Methodology: We performed a narrative analysis of transcripts and field notes obtained in a longitudinal, qualitative study on the resource group method. The stories of four different resource groups were reconstructed and analyzed in depth. Data included a total of 36 interviews (with patients, significant others, and mental health professionals) and 18 observations of resource group meetings. Results: The degree to which the resource group method actually contributes to recovery was based on the extent to which the existing roles of and patterns between the patient and his/her resource group members were altered. Breaking through old patterns of inequality and the joint search for a new balance in relationships proved to be crucial processes for establishing an empowering resource group. The four cases showed that it takes time, patience, and small steps back and forth to overcome the struggles and fears related to finding new ways of relating to each other. An honest and reflective atmosphere in which all participants are encouraged to participate and be curious about themselves and each other is essential for changes in interpersonal dynamics to emerge. Such changes pave the way for individuals with SMI to find their own voices and pursue their unique recovery journeys. Conclusions: The functioning of the resource group and the ability of the involved members to respond in new ways are important when working toward the patient's recovery goals. The resource group method should therefore not be considered an intervention to organize informal support for the patient, but a platform to expose and adjust the functioning of the patient's social network as a whole.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed. METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal. RESULTS:A total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n?=?40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (<?16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio. CONCLUSIONS:Assuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017072527.

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.

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

Dataset Information

Non-pharmacological strategies for self-directed and interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness: a rapid overview of systematic reviews.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Registration details

Publications

Non-pharmacological strategies for self-directed and interpersonal violence in people with severe mental illness: a rapid overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets