Dataset Information

Guidelines improve patient outcomes in specialised mental health care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The uptake of evidence-based guideline recommendations appears to be challenging. In the midst of the discussion on how to overcome these barriers, the question of whether the use of guidelines leads to improved patient outcomes threatens to be overlooked. This study examined the effectiveness of evidence-based guidelines for all psychiatric disorders on patient health outcomes in specialist mental health care. All types of evidence-based guidelines, such as psychological and medication-focused guidelines, were eligible for inclusion. Provider performance was measured as a secondary outcome. Time to remission when treated with the guidelines was also examined.

Method

Six databases were searched until 10 August 2020. Studies were selected, and data were extracted independently according to the PRISMA guidelines. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool estimates across studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group criteria.

Prospero

CRD42020171311.

Results

The meta-analysis included 18 studies (N = 5380). Guidelines showed a positive significant effect size on the severity of psychopathological symptoms at the patient level when compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) (d = 0.29, 95%-CI = (0.19, 0.40), p < 0.001). Removal of a potential outlier gave globally the same results with Cohen's d = 0.26. Time to remission was shorter in the guideline treatment compared with TAU (HR = 1.54, 95%-CI = (1.29, 1.84), p = 0.001, n = 3).

Conclusions

Patients cared for with guideline-adherent treatments improve to a greater degree and more quickly than patients treated with TAU. Knowledge on the mechanisms of change during guideline-adherent treatment needs to be developed further such that we can provide the best possible treatment to patients in routine care.

SUBMITTER: Setkowski K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8456921 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe mental health and well-being of children and young people who have been in care (ie, care-experienced) are a priority. There are a range of interventions aimed at addressing these outcomes, but the international evidence-base remains ambiguous. There is a paucity of methodologically robust systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness, with few considering the contextual conditions under which evaluations were conducted. This is important in understanding the potential transferability of the evidence-base across contexts. The present systematic review will adopt a complex systems perspective to synthesise evidence reporting evaluations of mental health and well-being interventions for care-experienced children and young people. It will address impact, equity, cost-effectiveness, context, implementation and acceptability. Stakeholder consultation will prioritise a programme theory, and associated intervention, that may progress to further development and evaluation in the UK.Methods and analysisWe will search 16 bibliographic databases from 1990 to June 2020. Supplementary searching will include citation tracking, author recommendation, and identification of evidence clusters relevant to included evaluations. The eligible population is children and young people (aged ≤25 years) with experience of being in care. Outcomes are (1) mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders; (2) subjective well-being; (3) self-harm; suicidal ideation; suicide. Study quality will be appraised with methodologically appropriate tools. We will construct a taxonomy of programme theories and intervention types. Thematic synthesis will be used for qualitative data reporting context, implementation and acceptability. If appropriate, meta-analysis will be conducted with outcome and economic data. Convergent synthesis will be used to integrate syntheses of qualitative and quantitative data.Ethics and disseminationWe have a comprehensive strategy for engagement with care-experienced children and young people, carers and social care professionals. Dissemination will include academic and non-academic publications and conference presentations. Ethical approval from Cardiff University's School of Social Sciences REC will be obtained if necessary.Prospero registration numberCRD42020177478.

Project description:Background: Refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people experience a high burden of mental health problems owing to their experiencing traumas and stressful events.Objective: To summarise the available evidence and analyse the efficacy of brief psychological interventions (< 3 months) on improving mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in refugees.Method: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus from inception to 19 December 2023. We included controlled studies using any cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or CBT-based therapies delivered over a short time (< 3 months), which reported mental health outcomes pre-and post-intervention. We conducted meta-analyses using random effects to derive pooled summary statistics. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2) and ROBINS-I tools. This study is registered on the Open Science Framework, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/9CXU4.Results: 34 eligible studies across 37 publications were retrieved for analysis, and 33 studies with 4479 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There was an overall improvement in immediate mental health outcomes for all three domains, with analysis of 13 studies on anxiety outcomes (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.52), 20 studies on depression (SMD -1.04, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.11), and 24 studies on PTSD (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.45). At 3 to 6-month follow-up, however, analysis of mental health outcomes shows no significant change from baseline, with a SMD of 0.24 (95% CI -0.94 to 1.42) across 4 studies, -0.73 (95% CI -2.14 to 0.68) across 9 studies, and 0.29 (95% CI -0.94 to 1.53) across 12 studies for anxiety, depression, and PTSD respectively.Conclusion: Low-quality evidence shows brief psychological interventions have a positive immediate effect on refugees and internally displaced people's mental well-being. However, these effects do not persist in the short-term follow up. Heterogeneity was high, even among subgroups, impacting our findings' generalisability.

Project description:ObjectivesDetermine effect of mental health interventions on psychologic outcomes in informal caregivers of critically ill patients.Data sourcesSearches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and other databases from inception to October 31, 2019.Study selectionInterventions for informal caregivers of critically ill patients in adult ICU, PICU, or neonatal ICU.Data extractionTwo independent, blinded reviewers screened citations and extracted data. Random-effects models with inverse variance weighting pooled outcome data when suitable. Psychologic outcomes categorized: 1) negative (anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, distress, and burden) or 2) positive (courage, humanity, justice, transcendence, temperance, and wisdom and knowledge). Stratification according to intervention type and patient population was performed.Data synthesisOf 11,201 studies, 102 interventional trials were included (n = 12,676 informal caregivers). Interventions targeted caregiver experience (n = 58), role (n = 6), or support (n = 38). Meta-analysis (56 randomized controlled trials; n = 22 [39%] in adult ICUs; n = 34 [61%] in neonatal ICU or PICU) demonstrated reduced anxiety (ratio of means = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.97) and depression (ratio of means = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-0.99), but not post-traumatic stress disorder (ratio of means = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.04) or distress (ratio of means = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.95-1.07) among informal caregivers randomized to mental health interventions compared with controls within 3 months post-ICU discharge. Increased humanity (ratio of means = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15), transcendence (ratio of means = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.07-1.15), and caregiver burden (ratio of means = 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12) were observed. No significant effects of mental health interventions observed after 3 months postdischarge.ConclusionsMental health interventions for caregivers of critically ill patients improved short-term anxiety, depression, humanity, and transcendence while increasing burden. Clinicians should consider short-term prescriptions of mental health interventions to informal caregivers of critically ill patients with capacity to manage interventions.

Project description:Care bundles are a set of three to five evidence-informed practices performed collectively and reliably to improve the quality of care. Care bundles are used widely across healthcare settings with the aim of preventing and managing different health conditions. This is the first systematic review designed to determine the effects of care bundles on patient outcomes and the behaviour of healthcare workers in relation to fidelity with care bundles.This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A total of 5796 abstracts were retrieved through a systematic search for articles published between January 1, 2001, to February 4, 2017, in the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, PsychInfo, British Library, Conference Proceeding Citation Index, OpenGrey trials (including cluster-randomised trials) and non-randomised studies (comprising controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, cohort studies) of care bundles for any health condition and any healthcare settings were considered. Following the removal of duplicated studies, two reviewers independently screen 3134 records. Three authors performed data extraction independently. We compared the care bundles with usual care to evaluate the effects of care bundles on the risk of negative patient outcomes. Random-effect models were used to further explore the effects of subgroups.In total, 37 studies (6 randomised trials, 31 controlled before-after studies) were eligible for inclusion. The effect of care bundles on patient outcomes is uncertain. For randomised trial data, the pooled relative risk of negative effects between care bundle and control groups was 0.97 [95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 2049 participants]. The relative risk of negative patient outcomes from controlled before-after studies favoured the care bundle treated groups (0.66 [95% CI 0.59 to 0.75; 119,178 participants]). However, using GRADE, we assessed the certainty of all of the evidence to be very low (downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness).Very low quality evidence from controlled before-after studies suggests that care bundles may reduce the risk of negative outcomes when compared with usual care. By contrast, the better quality evidence from six randomised trials is more uncertain.PROSPERO, CRD42016033175.