No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPast studies have identified poor rates of detection of mental illness among inmates. Consequently, mental health screening is a common feature to various correctional mental health strategies and best practice guidelines. However, there is little guidance to support the selection of an appropriate tool. This systematic review compared the sensitivity and specificity of mental health screening tools among adult jail or prison populations.MethodsA systematic review of MEDLINE and PsycINFO up to 2011, with additional studies identified from a search of reference lists. Only studies involving adult jail or prison populations, with an independent measure of mental illness, were included. Studies in forensic settings to determine fitness to stand trial or criminal responsibility were excluded. Twenty-four studies met all inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review. All articles were coded by two independent authors. Study quality was coded by the lead author.ResultsTwenty-two screening tools were identified. Only six tools have replication studies: the Brief Jail Mental Health Screen (BJMHS), the Correctional Mental Health Screen for Men (CMHS-M), the Correctional Mental Health Screen for Women (CMHS-W), the England Mental Health Screen (EMHS), the Jail Screening Assessment Tool (JSAT), and the Referral Decision Scale (RDS). A descriptive summary is provided in lieu of use of meta-analytic techniques due to the lack of replication studies and methodological variations across studies.ConclusionsThe BJMHS, CMHS-M, CMHS-W, EMHS and JSAT appear to be the most promising tools. Future research should consider important contextual factors in the implementation of a screening tool that have received little attention. Randomized or quasi-randomized trials are recommended to evaluate the effectiveness of screening to improve the detection of mental illness compared to standard practices.

Objectives: The rapid pace, high volume, and limited quality of mental health evidence being generated during COVID-19 poses a barrier to effective decision-making. The objective of the present report is to compare mental health outcomes assessed during COVID-19 to outcomes prior to COVID-19 in the general population and other population groups. Design: Living systematic review. Data Sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection: Citation Indexes, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv (preprints), and Open Science Framework Preprints (preprint server aggregator). The initial search was conducted on April 13, 2020 with ongoing weekly updates. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: For this report, we included studies that compared general mental health, anxiety symptoms, or depression symptoms, assessed January 1, 2020 or later, to the same outcomes collected between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. We required ≥ 90% of participants pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19 to be the same or the use of statistical methods to address missing data. For population groups with continuous outcomes for at least three studies in an outcome domain, we conducted restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects meta-analyses. Results: As of March 22, 2021, we had identified 36 unique eligible studies with data from 33 cohorts. All reported COVID-19 outcomes between March and June 2020, and 3 studies also reported outcomes between September and November 2020. Estimates of changes in general mental health were close to zero in the general population (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 94.6%; 4 studies, N = 19,707) and among older adults (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16, I2 = 90.4%; 4 studies, N = 5,520) and university students (SMD = -0.01, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.30, I2 = 92.0%; 3 studies, N = 3,372). Changes in anxiety symptoms were close to zero and not statistically significant in university students (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.36, I2 = 95.4%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); women or females (SMD = 0.02, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.39, I2 = 92.3%; 3 studies, N = 2,778); and men or males (SMD = 0.07, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.15; I2 = 0.01%; 3 studies, N = 1,250); anxiety symptoms increased, however, among people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54, I2 = 91.0%; 3 studies, N = 2,053). Changes in depression symptoms were close to zero or small and not statistically significant among university students (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.45, I2 = 91.8%; 5 studies, N = 1,537); people with pre-existing medical conditions (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.17, I2 = 14.9%; 3 studies, N = 2,006); women or females (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.55, I2 = 91.2%; 3 studies, N = 2,843); and men or males (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; I2 = 92.3%; 4 studies, N = 3,661). In 3 studies with data from both March to June 2020 and September to November 2020, symptoms were unchanged from pre-COVID-19 at both time points or there were increases at the first assessment that had largely dissipated by the second assessment. Conclusions: Evidence does not suggest a widespread negative effect on mental health symptoms in COVID-19, although it is possible that gaps in data have not allowed identification of changes in some vulnerable groups. Continued updating is needed as evidence accrues.