People living with severe mental illness (SMI) are one of the most marginalized groups in society. Interventions which aim to improve their social and economic participation are of crucial importance to clinicians, policy‐makers and people with SMI themselves. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on social interventions for people with SMI published since 2016 and collated our findings through narrative synthesis. We found an encouragingly large amount of research in this field, and 72 papers met our inclusion criteria. Over half reported on the effectiveness of interventions delivered at the service level (supported accommodation, education or employment), while the remainder targeted individuals directly (community participation, family interventions, peer‐led/supported interventions, social skills training). We identified good evidence for the Housing First model of supported accommodation, for the Individual Placement and Support model of supported employment, and for family psychoeducation, with the caveat that a range of models are nonetheless required to meet the varied housing, employment and family‐related needs of individuals. Our findings also highlighted the importance of contextual factors and the need to make local adaptations when “importing” interventions from elsewhere. We found that augmentation strategies to enhance the effectiveness of social interventions (particularly supported employment and social skills training) by addressing cognitive impairments did not lead to transferable “real life” skills despite improvements in cognitive function. We also identified an emerging evidence base for peer‐led/supported interventions, recovery colleges and other interventions to support community participation. We concluded that social interventions have considerable benefits but are arguably the most complex in the mental health field, and require multi‐level stakeholder commitment and investment for successful implementation.
Increasing efforts are being made to prevent and/or eliminate the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health facilities. Recent literature recognises the importance of the physical environment in supporting better outcomes in mental health services. This rapid review scoped the existing literature studying what physical design features of mental health facilities can reduce the use of seclusion and physical restraint.DesignA rapid review of peer-reviewed literature.MethodsPeer-reviewed literature was searched for studies on architectural design and the use of restraint and seclusion in mental health facilities. The following academic databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus and Avery for English language literature published between January 2010 and August 2019. The Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.ResultsWe identified 35 peer-reviewed studies. The findings revealed several overarching themes in design efforts to reduce the use of seclusion and restraint: a beneficial physical environment (eg, access to gardens or recreational facilities); sensory or comfort rooms; and private, uncrowded and calm spaces. The critical appraisal indicated that the overall quality of studies was low, as such the findings should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionThis study found preliminary evidence that the physical environment has a role in supporting the reduction in the use of seclusion and restraint. This is likely to be achieved through a multilayered approach, founded on good design features and building towards specific design features which may reduce occurrences of seclusion and restraint. Future designs should include consumers in a codesign process to maximise the potential for change and innovation that is genuinely guided by the insights of lived experience expertise.
BackgroundStroke is a leading cause of disability and distress, and often profoundly affects the quality of life of stroke survivors and their carers. With the support of carers, many stroke survivors are returning to live in the community despite the presence of disability and ongoing challenges. The sudden and catastrophic changes caused by stroke affects the mental, emotional and social health of both stroke survivors and carers. The aim of this study is to evaluate a Stroke and Carer Optimal Health Program (SCOHP) that adopts a person-centred approach and engages collaborative therapy to educate, support and improve the psychosocial health of stroke survivors and their carers.MethodsThis study is a prospective randomised controlled trial. It will include a total of 168 stroke survivors and carers randomly allocated into an intervention group (SCOHP) or a control group (usual care). Participants randomised to the intervention group will receive nine (8 + 1 booster) sessions guided by a structured workbook. The primary outcome measures for stroke survivors and carers will be health-related quality of life (AQoL-6D and EQ-5D) and self-efficacy (GSE). Secondary outcome measures will include: anxiety and depression (HADS); coping (Brief COPE); work and social adjustment (WSAS); carer strain (MCSI); carer satisfaction (CASI); and treatment evaluation (TEI-SF and CEQ). Process evaluation and a health economic cost analysis will also be conducted.DiscussionWe believe that this is an innovative intervention that engages the stroke survivor and carer and will be significant in improving the psychosocial health, increasing independence and reducing treatment-related costs in this vulnerable patient-carer dyad. In addition, we expect that the intervention will assist carers and stroke survivors to negotiate the complexity of health services across the trajectory of care and provide practical skills to improve self-management.Trial registrationACTRN12615001046594. Registered on 7 October 2015.
When graduates of Australian social work courses embark on a career in mental health, the systems they enter are complex, fragmented and evolving. Emerging practitioners will commonly be confronted by the loneliness, social exclusion, poverty and prejudice experienced by people living with mental distress; however, social work practice may not be focused on these factors. Instead, in accordance with the dominant biomedical perspective, symptom and risk management may predominate. Frustration with the limitations evident in this approach has seen the United Nations call for the transformation of mental health service delivery. Recognising paradigmatic influences on mental health social work may lead to a more considered enactment of person centred, recovery and rights-based approaches. This paper compares and contrasts influences of neo-liberalism, critical theory, human rights and post-structuralism on mental health social work practice. In preparing social work practitioners to recognise the influence of, and work more creatively with, intersecting paradigms, social work educators strive to foster a transformative approach to mental health practice that straddles discourses.
Background Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) in research positively affects the relevance, quality, and impact of research. Around 11% of studies published in leading medical journals demonstrate PPIE. The extent of PPIE in nursing research has not been previously studied. Methods A descriptive study of PPIE in clinical trials published in general nursing science journals between 1st January and 31st August 2021. Data were extracted from included studies against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) short form reporting checklist. Results We searched 27 journals and identified 89 randomised controlled clinical trials. There was no statement or evidence of PPIE in any of the included trials. Conclusion Nurse researchers need to ensure that they purposefully involve patients in their research and report this in papers describing study findings.
Objective: This study explored the benefits and limitations of employing peer support workers, who utilise their own lived experience of mental distress and recovery, to support people experiencing mental distress who are attending the ED. Methods: This co-produced qualitative study utilised four phases: (i) assemble a collaborative multidisciplinary research team and Expert Panel, of which at least half identified as having lived experience; (ii) a site visit to an ED; (iii) focus groups with consumers, support persons and ED staff; and (iv) a learning workshop for peer workers. Results: Focus groups were run for consumers (n = 7), support persons (n = 5) and ED staff (n = 7). Eleven consumer peer workers participated in the learning workshop. Four themes were identified and triangulated: the individual in distress, peer support work, a 'Peers in EDs' service and the ED context. Overall, findings suggest that peer support workers contribute important skills including listening, de-escalation, relationship-building and empathy.Conclusions: This study identified that peer support workers would bring important skills to an ED (e.g. empathetic support, de-escalation). However, significant workforce and organisational support would be required.
IntroductionOne of the most challenging aspects of conducting intervention trials among people who experience severe mental illness (SMI) and who smoke tobacco, is recruitment. In our parent “QuitLink” randomized controlled trial (RCT), slower than expected peer researcher facilitated recruitment, along with the impact of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, necessitated an adaptive recruitment response. The objectives of the present study were to: (i) describe adaptive peer researcher facilitated recruitment strategies; (ii) explore the effectiveness of these strategies; (iii) investigate whether recruitment strategies reached different subgroups of participants; and (iv) examine the costs and resources required for implementing these strategies. Finally, we offer experience-based lessons in a Peer Researcher Commentary.MethodsPeople were included in the RCT if they smoked at least 10 cigarettes a day and were accessing mental health support from the project's two partnering mental health organizations in Victoria, Australia. The majority of people accessing these services will have been diagnosed with SMI. Recruitment occurred over 2 years. We began with peer facilitated recruitment strategies delivered face-to-face, then replaced this with direct mail postcards followed by telephone contact. In the final 4 months of the study, we began online recruitment, broadening it to people who smoked and were accessing support or treatment (including from general practitioners) for mental health and/or alcohol or other drug problems, anywhere in the state of Victoria. Differences between recruitment strategies on key participant variables were assessed. We calculated the average cost per enrolee of the different recruitment approaches.ResultsOnly 109 people were recruited from a target of 382: 29 via face-to-face (March 2019 to April 2020), 66 from postcards (May 2020 to November 2020), and 14 from online (November to December 2020 and January to March 2021) strategies. Reflecting our initial focus on recruiting from supported independent living accommodation facilities, participants recruited face-to-face were significantly more likely to be living in partially or fully supported independent living (n = 29, <0.001), but the samples were otherwise similar. After the initial investment in training and equipping peer researchers, the average cost of recruitment was AU$1,182 per participant—~US$850. Face-to-face recruitment was the most expensive approach and postcard recruitment the least (AU$1,648 and AU$928 per participant).DiscussionPeer researcher facilitated recruitment into a tobacco treatment trial was difficult and expensive. Widely dispersed services and COVID-19 restrictions necessitated non-face-to-face recruitment strategies, such as direct mail postcards, which improved recruitment and may be worthy of further research.Clinical Trial Registration:The trial is registered with ANZCTR (www.anzctr.org.au): ACTRN12619000244101 prior to the accrual of the first participant and updated regularly as per registry guidelines. The trial sponsor was the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Background: Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in identifying research questions, designing trials, and collecting, interpreting, and publishing results may positively affect the relevance, quality and impact of research. The extent of patient and public involvement in nursing clinical trials has not been previously studied. Methods: A Scientiometric study of PPI in clinical trials published in three leading nursing science journals. Randomised controlled clinical trials published in the International Journal of Nursing Studies, the Journal of Clinical Nursing, and the Journal of Advanced Nursing between January and April 2021 were identified by searching the SCOPUS database. Journal author guidelines were also review. Data were extracted against the five items of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) reporting checklist. Results: None of the journals required authors to include a patient and public involvement statement in submitted papers or to thank participants in the acknowledgement section of the paper. We included 23 randomised controlled clinical trials, of which half were conducted in Europe and 12 were supported by external grants. Authors thanked participants in the acknowledgement section often (43%) trials. There was no statement or evidence of patient and public involvement in any of the included trials.Conclusion: There was no evidence of PPI in trials published in nursing science journals. Researchers, funders, and journals need to collaborate to change cultural expectations to ensure that PPI is an emended part of clinical research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.