Dataset Information

COVID-19-Related Mortality Risk in People With Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic and Critical Review.

ABSTRACT: Background: Increasing clinical evidence suggests that people with severe mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD), are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19. Several systematic reviews examining the association between psychiatric disorders and COVID-19-related mortality have recently been published. Although these reviews have been conducted thoroughly, certain methodological limitations may hinder the accuracy of their research findings. Methods: A systematic literature search, using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases (from inception to July 23, 2021), was conducted for observational studies assessing the risk of death associated with COVID-19 infection in adult patients with pre-existing schizophrenia spectrum disorders, BD, or MDD. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Of 1,446 records screened, 13 articles investigating the rates of death in patients with pre-existing SMI were included in this systematic review. Quality assessment scores of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Most results seem to indicate that patients with SMI, particularly patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, are at significantly higher risk of COVID-19-related mortality, as compared to patients without SMI. However, the extent of the variation in COVID-19-related mortality rates between studies including people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was large because of a low level of precision of the estimated mortality outcome(s) in certain studies. Most studies on MDD and BD did not include specific information on the mood state or disease severity of patients. Due to a lack of data, it remains unknown to what extent patients with BD are at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality. A variety of factors are likely to contribute to the increased mortality risk of COVID-19 in these patients. These include male sex, older age, somatic comorbidities (particularly cardiovascular diseases), as well as disease-specific characteristics. Conclusion: Methodological limitations hamper the accuracy of COVID-19-related mortality estimates for the main categories of SMIs. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that SMI is associated with excess COVID-19 mortality. Policy makers therefore must consider these vulnerable individuals as a high-risk group that should be given particular attention. This means that targeted interventions to maximize vaccination uptake among these patients are required to address the higher burden of COVID-19 infection in this already disadvantaged group.

SUBMITTER: De Hert M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8793909 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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

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.

Dataset Information

COVID-19-Related Mortality Risk in People With Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic and Critical Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets