Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32456670›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2020

Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators.

Laura-Louise Arundell, Helen Greenwood, Helen Baldwin, Eleanor Kotas, Shubulade Smith, Kasia Trojanowska, Chris Cooper

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Equity by design principles for digital health interventions.International journal for equity in health · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Laura-Louise ArundellDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. laura-louise.arundell@rcpsych.ac.uk.
Helen GreenwoodNational Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH), Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot Street, London, E1 8BB, UK.
Helen BaldwinNational Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH), Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot Street, London, E1 8BB, UK.
Eleanor KotasYork Economics Consortium, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
Shubulade SmithNational Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH), Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot Street, London, E1 8BB, UK.
Kasia TrojanowskaNational Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH), Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot Street, London, E1 8BB, UK.
Chris CooperDepartment of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care.

methodsA systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included.

resultsOverall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints.

conclusionsThe mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Mental DisordersMental HealthCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansResearch DesignSocioeconomic FactorsEqualityHealth economicsInequalitiesMapping reviewMental healthQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID32456670
PMCPMC7251669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.