Dataset Information

Physical comorbidity and use of healthcare services in people with schizophrenia: protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

People with schizophrenia die about 15-20 years earlier than the general population. A constellation of factors contributes to this gap in life expectancy: side effects of psychotropic drugs, unhealthy lifestyles (inactivity, unhealthy diet) and inequality in the provision of healthcare services. This is a topic of main importance, which requires constant update and synthesis of the literature. The aim of this review is to explore the evidence of physical comorbidity and use of healthcare services in people with schizophrenia.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a systematic literature search in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library, Proquest Health Research Premium Collection, in order to identify studies that answer to our research question: Are patients with schizophrenia different from the non-psychiatric population in terms of physical comorbidity and use of healthcare services? Two authors will independently review the studies and extract the data.

Ethics and dissemination

This study does not include human or animal subjects. Thus, ethics considerations are not applicable. Dissemination plans include publications in peer-reviewed journals and discussion of results in psychiatric congresses.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020139972.

SUBMITTER: Salvador Robert M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8671972 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsDrug checking services provide people who use drugs with chemical analysis results of their drug samples while simultaneously monitoring the unregulated drug market. We sought to identify and synthesize literature on the following domains: (a) the influence of drug checking services on the behaviour of people who use drugs; (b) monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services; and (c) outcomes related to models of drug checking services.MethodsSystematic review. A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Dissertations and Theses Global. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed articles and conference abstracts or grey literature, published in any language since 1990 and including original data on the domains. We assessed risk of bias for quantitative peer-reviewed articles reporting on behaviour or models of drug checking services using National Institutes of Health tools.ResultsWe screened 2463 titles and abstracts and 156 full texts, with 90 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Most (n = 65, 72.2%) were from Europe and used cross-sectional designs (n = 79, 87.7%). Monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services (n = 63, 70%) was the most reported domain, followed by the influence of drug checking services on behaviour (n = 31, 34.4%), including intent to use, actual use and disposal of the drug, and outcomes related to models of drug checking services (n = 17, 18.9%). The most common outcome measures were detection of unexpected substances (n = 50, 55.6%), expected substances (n = 44, 48.9%), new psychoactive substances (n = 40, 44.4%) and drugs of concern (n = 32, 36.5%) by drug checking services.ConclusionsDrug checking services appear to influence behavioural intentions and the behaviour of people who use drugs, particularly when results from drug checking services are unexpected or drugs of concern. Monitoring of drug markets by drug checking services is well established in Europe, and increasingly in North America. Concerns about drug contents and negative health consequences facilitate the use of drug checking services; lack of concern; trust in drug sellers; lack of accessibility of drug checking services; and legal and privacy concerns are barriers to use.

Project description:IntroductionSafewards is an organisational approach to delivering inpatient mental health services. The aim of Safewards is to minimise the number of situations in which conflict arises between healthcare workers and patients that lead to the use of coercive interventions (restriction and/or containment).The Safewards Model has been developed, implemented and evaluated for its impact on all forms of containment. Safewards has been adopted as the recommended approach to preventing patient agitation and clinical aggression in some jurisdictions. Notwithstanding these recommendations, the outcomes of Safewards for staff and patients have not been comprehensively described.The aim of the scoping review is to describe (1) Safewards interventions; (2) how Safewards interventions have been implemented in healthcare settings; (3) outcome measures used to evaluate the effectiveness of Safewards; (4) barriers and enablers to the uptake and sustainability of Safewards. This review will provide a foundation for further research and/or systematic review of the effectiveness of Safewards.Methods and analysisPeer-reviewed manuscripts of quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method research in English with be included for the period 01 January 2013- December 31st 2020. Electronic databases including Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, Joanna Briggs Institute, Medline, Global Health, PsycINFO and Scopus will be searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews checklist and explanation and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol will be followed. Publications will be excluded if they do not include the required participants, concept or context. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this review is not required as the information to be collected is publicly available. There are no participants or safety considerations in this review of published literature. Key findings for future research and clinical practice will be disseminated though peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder reporting and conference presentations.

Project description:Background and objectivesFormal supports and social services are essential to people living alone with cognitive impairment (PLACI) because they are at risk of negative health outcomes and lack cohabitants who may support them with cognitively demanding tasks. To further our understanding of this critical and worldwide issue, we conducted a systematic review to understand whether, and how, PLACI access and use essential formal supports and services.Research design and methodsWe searched 6 databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Sociological Abstracts) to identify quantitative and mixed-method literature on formal service use among PLACI. The initial search was conducted in 2018 and updated in 2020.ResultsWe identified 32 studies published between 1992 and 2019, representing 13 countries, that met our criteria: 16 reported on health services and 26 on social services. Most studies compared PLACI with people with cognitive impairment living with others. Health service use was lower or similar among PLACI, as opposed to counterparts living with others. Most studies reported a higher use of social services (e.g., home services) among PLACI than those living with others. Overall use of essential home service among PLACI was higher in Europe than in the United States, a country where large portions of PLACI were reported receiving no formal services.Discussion and implicationsWe identified wide variability among countries and major gaps in service use. Results for use of health services were mixed, although our findings suggest that PLACI may have fewer physician visits than counterparts living with others. Our findings suggest that varying policies and budgets for these services among countries may have affected our findings. We encourage researchers to evaluate and compare the influence of social policies in the well-being of PLACI. We also encourage policy makers to prioritize the needs of PLACI in national dementia strategies.

Project description:BackgroundAs the US transitions to value-based healthcare, physicians and payers are incentivized to change healthcare delivery to improve quality of care while controlling costs. By assisting with the management of common chronic conditions, community health workers (CHWs) may improve healthcare quality, but physicians and payers who are making choices about care delivery also need to understand their effects on healthcare spending.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Embase, and Web of Science from the inception of each database to 22 June 2015. We included US-based studies that evaluated a CHW intervention for patients with at least one chronic health condition and reported cost or healthcare utilization outcomes. We evaluated studies using tools specific to study design.ResultsOur search yielded 2,941 studies after removing duplicates. Thirty-four met inclusion and methodological criteria. Sixteen studies (47%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs typically had less positive outcomes than other study designs. Of the 16 RCTs, 12 reported utilization outcomes, of which 5 showed a significant reduction in one or more of ED visits, hospitalizations and/or urgent care visits. Significant reductions reported in ED visits ranged from 23%-51% and in hospitalizations ranged from 21%-50%, and the one significant reduction in urgent care visits was recorded at 60% (p < 0.05 for all).DiscussionOur results suggest that CHW interventions have variable effects, but some may reduce costs and preventable utilization. These findings suggest that it is possible to achieve reductions in care utilization and cost savings by integrating CHWs into chronic care management. However, variations in cost and utilization outcomes suggest that CHWs alone do not make an intervention successful. The paucity of rigorous studies and heterogeneity of study designs limited conclusions about factors associated with reduced utilization.

Project description:BackgroundCervical cancer is a major public health problem. Even though readily preventable, it is the fourth leading cause of death in women globally. Women living with HIV are at increased risk of invasive cervical cancer, highlighting the need for access to screening and treatment for this population. Integration of services has been proposed as an effective way of improving access to cervical cancer screening especially in areas of high HIV prevalence as well as lower resourced settings. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of programs integrating cervical cancer and HIV services globally, including feasibility, acceptability, clinical outcomes and facilitators for service delivery.MethodsThis is part of a larger systematic review on integration of services for HIV and non-communicable diseases. To be considered for inclusion studies had to report on programs to integrate cervical cancer and HIV services at the level of service delivery. We searched multiple databases including Global Health, Medline and Embase from inception until December 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion and data were extracted and assessed for risk of bias.Main results11,057 records were identified initially. 7,616 articles were screened by title and abstract for inclusion. A total of 21 papers reporting interventions integrating cervical cancer care and HIV services met the criteria for inclusion. All but one study described integration of cervical cancer screening services into existing HIV services. Most programs also offered treatment of minor lesions, a 'screen-and-treat' approach, with some also offering treatment of larger lesions within the same visit. Three distinct models of integration were identified. One model described integration within the same clinic through training of existing staff. Another model described integration through co-location of services, with the third model describing programs of integration through complex coordination across the care pathway. The studies suggested that integration of cervical cancer services with HIV services using all models was feasible and acceptable to patients. However, several barriers were reported, including high loss to follow up for further treatment, limited human-resources, and logistical and chain management support. Using visual screening methods can facilitate screening and treatment of minor to larger lesions in a single 'screen-and-treat' visit. Complex integration in a single-visit was shown to reduce loss to follow up. The use of existing health infrastructure and funding together with comprehensive staff training and supervision, community engagement and digital technology were some of the many other facilitators for integration reported across models.ConclusionsThis review shows that integration of cervical cancer screening and treatment with HIV services using different models of service delivery is feasible as well as acceptable to women living with HIV. However, the descriptive nature of most papers and lack of data on the effect on long-term outcomes for HIV or cervical cancer limits the inference on the effectiveness of the integrated programs. There is a need for strengthening of health systems across the care continuum and for high quality studies evaluating the effect of integration on HIV as well as on cervical cancer outcomes.