Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Reviews of Correctional Mental Health Services Using the STAIR Framework

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rising demand for correctional mental health services (CMHS) in recent decades has been a global phenomenon. Despite increasing research, there are major gaps in understanding the best models for CMHS and how to measure their effectiveness, particularly studies that consider the overall care pathways and effectiveness of service responses. The STAIR (Screening, Triage, Assessment, Intervention, and Re-integration) model is an evidence-based framework that defines and measures CMHS as a clinical pathway with a series of measurable, and linked functions.

Method

We conducted a systematic review of the reviews of CMHS elements employing PRISMA guidelines, organized according to STAIR pillars. We assessed the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR-2 criteria. Narrative reviews were read and results synthesized.

Results

We included 26 review articles of which 12 were systematic, metaanalyses, and 14 narrative reviews. Two systematic reviews and seven narrative reviews addressed screening and triage with strong evidence to support specific screening and triage systems. There was no evidence for standardised assessment approaches. Eight systematic reviews and seven narrative reviews addressed interventions providing some evidence to support specific psychosocial interventions. Three systematic reviews and six narrative reviews addressed reintegration themes finding relatively weak evidence to support reintegration methods, with interventions often being jurisdictionally specific and lacking generalizability.

Conclusions

The STAIR framework is a useful way to organize the extant literature. More research is needed on interventions, assessment systems, care pathway evaluations, and reintegration models.

SUBMITTER: Simpson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8806032 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of adolescent mental health service provision globally, according to the WHO Global Standards of adolescent mental health literacy, appropriate package of services and provider competencies.Design and data sourcesSystematic review of 5 databases, and screening of eligible articles, from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2020.Study eligibility criteriaWe focused on quantitative and mixed-method studies that evaluated adolescent mental health literacy, appropriate package of services and provider competencies in mental health services, and that targeted depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder among adolescents (10-19 years). This included adolescents exposed to interventions or strategies within mental health services.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsStudy quality was assessed using the National Institutes for Health Study Quality Assessment Tools. Data were extracted and grouped based on WHO quality Standards.ResultsOf the 20 104 studies identified, 20 articles were included. The majority of studies came from high-income countries, with one from a low-income country. Most of the studies did not conceptualise quality. Results found that an online decision aid was evaluated to increase adolescent mental health literacy. Studies that targeted an appropriate package of services evaluated the quality of engagement between the therapist and adolescent, patient-centred communication, mental health service use, linkages to mental health services, health facility culture and intensive community treatment. Provider competencies focused on studies that evaluated confidence in managing and referring adolescents, collaboration between health facility levels, evidence-based practices and technology use.Conclusions and implicationsThere is limited evidence on quality measures in adolescent mental health services (as conforms to the WHO Global Standards), pointing to a global evidence gap for adolescent mental health services. There are several challenges to overcome, including a need to develop consensus on quality and methods to measure quality in mental health settings.Prospero registration numberCRD42020161318.

Project description:BackgroundTelemental health care has been rapidly adopted for maintaining services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a substantial interest is now being devoted in its future role. Service planning and policy making for recovery from the pandemic and beyond should draw on both COVID-19 experiences and the substantial research evidence accumulated before this pandemic.ObjectiveWe aim to conduct an umbrella review of systematic reviews available on the literature and evidence-based guidance on telemental health, including both qualitative and quantitative literature.MethodsThree databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2020 for systematic reviews meeting the predefined criteria. The retrieved reviews were independently screened, and those meeting the inclusion criteria were synthesized and assessed for risk of bias. Narrative synthesis was used to report these findings.ResultsIn total, 19 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. A total of 15 reviews examined clinical effectiveness, 8 reported on the aspects of telemental health implementation, 10 reported on acceptability to service users and clinicians, 2 reported on cost-effectiveness, and 1 reported on guidance. Most reviews were assessed to be of low quality. The findings suggested that video-based communication could be as effective and acceptable as face-to-face formats, at least in the short term. Evidence on the extent of digital exclusion and how it can be overcome and that on some significant contexts, such as children and young people's services and inpatient settings, was found to be lacking.ConclusionsThis umbrella review suggests that telemental health has the potential to be an effective and acceptable form of service delivery. However, we found limited evidence on the impact of its large-scale implementation across catchment areas. Combining previous evidence and COVID-19 experiences may allow realistic planning for the future implementation of telemental health.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of technologies has served to reduce gaps in access to treatment, and digital health interventions show promise in the care of mental health problems. However, to understand what and how these interventions work, it is imperative to document the aspects related to their challenging implementation.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine what evidence is available for synchronous digital mental health implementation and to develop a framework, informed by a realist review, to explain what makes digital mental health interventions work for people with mental health problems.MethodsThe SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type) framework was used to develop the following review question: What makes digital mental health interventions with a synchronous component work on people with mental health problems, including depression, anxiety, or stress, based on implementation, economic, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies? The MEDLINE, EBM Reviews, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL Complete, and Web of Science databases were searched from January 1, 2015, to September 2020 with no language restriction. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to assess the risk of bias and Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) was used to assess the confidence in cumulative evidence. Realist synthesis analysis allowed for developing a framework on the implementation of synchronous digital mental health using a grounded-theory approach with an emergent approach.ResultsA total of 21 systematic reviews were included in the study. Among these, 90% (n=19) presented a critically low confidence level as assessed with AMSTAR-2. The realist synthesis allowed for the development of three hypotheses to identify the context and mechanisms in which these interventions achieve these outcomes: (1) these interventions reach populations otherwise unable to have access because they do not require the physical presence of the therapist nor the patient, thereby tackling geographic barriers posed by in-person therapy; (2) these interventions reach populations otherwise unable to have access because they can be successfully delivered by nonspecialists, which makes them more cost-effective to implement in health services; and (3) these interventions are acceptable and show good results in satisfaction because they require less need of disclosure and provide more privacy, comfortability, and participation, enabling the establishment of rapport with the therapist.ConclusionsWe developed a framework with three hypotheses that explain what makes digital mental health interventions with a synchronous component work on people with mental health problems. Each hypothesis represents essential outcomes in the implementation process.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020203811; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020203811.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.12688/f1000research.27150.2.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)-mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs).DesignScoping review of SRs.MethodsWe searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety.ResultsWe included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK-MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind-body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety-only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data.ConclusionsOnly one SR studied MSK-MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.

Project description:IntroductionThe majority of people who die by suicide have never seen a mental health professional or been diagnosed with a mental illness. To date, this majority group has largely been ignored, with most existing research focusing on predictors of suicide such as past suicide attempts. Identifying the characteristics of people who die by suicide without receiving services, often with a fatal first attempt, is crucial to reduce suicide rates through guiding improvements to service pathways and "just in time" interventions.MethodsIn this systematic review, PsycInfo, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for peer-reviewed articles published from 1980 to 1st March 2021. Included studies examined predictors of non-receipt of formal mental health services among people who died by suicide. Data were extracted from published reports and the quality of included studies was assessed using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies. This review was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021226543.ResultsSixty-seven studies met inclusion criteria, with sample sizes ranging from 39 to 193,152 individuals. Male sex, younger or older age, and rural location were consistently associated with non-receipt of mental health services. People not receiving mental health services were also less likely to have a psychiatric diagnosis, past suicidal behavior or contact with general health services, and more likely to use violent means of suicide. There was some evidence that minority ethnicity and psychosocial stressors were associated with service non-receipt.ConclusionPeople who die by suicide without receiving mental health services are likely to have diverse profiles, indicating the need for multifaceted approaches to effectively support people at risk of suicide. Identifying the needs and preferences of individuals who are at risk of suicide is crucial in developing new support pathways and services, and improving the quality of existing services.Systematic review registrationhttp://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42021226543.