Dataset Information

The level of formal support received by people with severe mental illness living in supported accommodation and participation: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The review aimed to identify and explore the association of level of support received by people with severe mental illness in supported accommodation and participation.

Method

The authors conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, CINAHL Plus and ASSIA. Searches were restricted to articles published in English and participants aged 18 years and over with severe mental illness. Articles were included based on level of support received in mental health supported accommodation, classified according to the Simple Taxonomy for Supported Accommodation, and three factors of participation: social participation, daily living functioning and personal empowerment. Studies of in-patient settings and nursing homes were excluded. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42019161808).

Results

Six articles were included in the review from USA, Australia, Sweden and Taiwan. Factors of participation for people living in accommodation with moderate support and accommodation with high support were explored. Data indicated an association between level of support and participation showing that people living in accommodation with moderate support had increased participation compared to people living in accommodation with high support.

Conclusion

This review identified an association between level of formal support and participation. People with SMI living in accommodation with medium support participated in more community occupations, more activities and had a higher level of personal empowerment than people living in accommodation with high support.

SUBMITTER: Jose AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8559179 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundPost-deinstitutionalisation, mental health supported accommodation services have been implemented widely. The available research evidence is heterogeneous in nature and resistant to synthesis attempts, leaving researchers and policy makers with no clear summary what works and for whom. In this context, we undertook a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative studies in order to synthesise the current evidence on mental health and psychosocial outcomes for individuals residing in mental health supported accommodation services.MethodsUsing a combination of electronic database searches, hand searches, forward-backward snowballing and article recommendations from an expert panel, 115 papers were identified for review. Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted, and 33 articles were excluded due to low quality, leaving 82 papers in the final review. Variation in terminology and service characteristics made the comparison of service models unfeasible. As such, findings were presented according to the following sub-groups: 'Homeless', 'Deinstitutionalisation' and 'General Severe Mental Illness (SMI)'.ResultsResults were mixed, reflecting the heterogeneity of the supported accommodation literature, in terms of research quality, experimental design, population, service types and outcomes assessed. There is some evidence that supported accommodation is effective across a range of psychosocial outcomes. The most robust evidence supports the effectiveness of the permanent supported accommodation model for homeless SMI in generating improvements in housing retention and stability, and appropriate use of clinical services over time, and for other forms of supported accommodation for deinstitutionalised populations in reducing hospitalisation rates and improving appropriate service use. The evidence base for general SMI populations is less developed, and requires further research.ConclusionsA lack of high-quality experimental studies, definitional inconsistency and poor reporting continue to stymie our ability to identify effective supported accommodation models and practices. The authors recommend improved reporting standards and the prioritisation of experimental studies that compare outcomes across different service models.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Persons with severe mental illness are more prone to victimization and experience more difficulties regarding societal participation than other community members. These experiences vary greatly among individuals. Community mental health care should offer more individualized support by addressing these differences in experience. Therefore, this study aimed to identify subgroups of outpatients with severe mental illness based on their experiences of social participation and victimization. METHODS:Data from patients with severe mental illness from eight outpatient teams in the Netherlands were used to perform latent class analysis. From the total caseload, 395 patients agreed to participate. Classes were based on: i) criminal victimization incidents, ii) criminal perpetration incidents (Dutch Safety Monitor), iii) experienced discrimination (DISC-12), and iv) social functioning (Social Functioning Scale). Also, to investigate differences between the classes, socio-demographic, clinical, and person-related variables were examined. RESULTS:Three classes were identified. The Victimized and Perpetrating class (34.4%) had the highest prevalence of discrimination, victimization, and perpetration, and intermediate scores on social functioning subscales. This class also experienced the most problems in other domains, such as psychosocial functioning and quality of life. The Discriminated and Avoiding class (36.4%) had moderate scores for discrimination, victimization and perpetration, and the lowest scores for social functioning and social support. The General Difficulties class (28.8%) had the lowest prevalence of discrimination, victimization, and perpetration, and the highest scores on social functioning. DISCUSSION:These distinct classes offer new insights to mental health professionals in outpatient teams in in their aim to positively influence the patient's social context during rehabilitation; this includes addressing the role of victimization, and indicates the relevance of distinctive approaches and the support needed for each class. Professionals may need to focus more on the impact of difficulties in their patients' social context to adequately support them in the rehabilitation process.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To explore ways in which occupational justice and social inclusion are conceptualised, defined and operationalised in highly stigmatised and chronic conditions of mental illness and HIV. DESIGN:This scoping review protocol followed Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) Scoping Review Framework. DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY:The following databases were searched for the period January 1997 to January 2019: Medline via PubMed, Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Africa-Wide Information, Humanities International Complete, Web of Science, PsychInfo, SocINDEX and grey literature.Eligible articles were primary studies, reviews or theoretical papers which conceptualised, defined and/or operationalised social inclusion or occupational justice in mental illness or HIV. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS:We undertook a three-part article screening process. Screening and data extraction were undertaken independently by two researchers. Arksey's framework and thematic analysis informed the collation and synthesis of included papers. RESULTS:From 3352 records, we reviewed 139 full articles and retained 27 for this scoping review. Definitions of social inclusion and occupational justice in the domains of mental illness and HIV were heterogeneous and lacked definitional clarity. The two concepts were conceptualised as either processes or personal experiences, with key features of community participation, respect for human rights and establishment and maintenance of healthy relationships. Conceptual commonalities between social inclusion and occupational justice were premised on social justice. CONCLUSIONS:To address lack of clarity, we propose further and concurrent exploration of these concepts, specifically with reference to persons with comorbid mental health disorders such as substance use disorders and HIV living in low-income countries. This should reflect contextual realities influencing community participation, respect for human rights and meaningful occupational participation. From this broadened understanding, quantitative measures should be applied to improve the standardisation of measurements for occupational justice and social inclusion in policy, research and practice.

Project description: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.