Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35484521›Full record

ReviewBMC psychiatry2022

Interventions to improve social circumstances of people with mental health conditions: a rapid evidence synthesis.

Phoebe Barnett, Thomas Steare, Zainab Dedat, Stephen Pilling, Paul McCrone, Martin Knapp, Eleanor Cooke, Daphne Lamirel, Sarah Dawson, Peter Goldblatt and 11 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

21 authors.

Phoebe BarnettCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. phoebe.barnett@ucl.ac.uk.
Thomas SteareDepartment of Psychiatry, Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Zainab DedatDepartment of Psychiatry, Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Stephen PillingCentre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Research Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Paul McCroneInstitute of Lifecourse Development, University of Greenwich, London, UK.
Martin KnappCare Policy and Evaluation Centre, Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Eleanor CookeCamden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust and MH Policy Research Unit, London, UK.
Daphne LamirelDepartment of Psychiatry, Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Sarah DawsonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, England.
Peter GoldblattDepartment of Epidemiology & Public Health, Institute of Health Equity, University College London, London, UK.
Stephani HatchInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Department of Psychological Medicine, Kings College London, London, UK.
Claire HendersonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Health Services and Population Research Department, Kings College London, London, UK.
Rachel JenkinsInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurology, Kings College London, London, UK.
T KMental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Karen MachinMental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Alan SimpsonDepartment of Psychiatry, Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Prisha ShahMental Health Policy Research Unit Lived Experience Working Group, Department of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Martin StevensNIHR Policy Research Unit On Health and Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King's College London, London, UK.
Martin WebberInternational Centre for Mental Health Social Research, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of York, York, England.
Sonia JohnsonDepartment of Psychiatry, Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.
Brynmor Lloyd-EvansDepartment of Psychiatry, Mental Health Policy Research Unit, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor social circumstances can induce, exacerbate and prolong symptoms of mental health conditions, while having a mental health condition can also lead to worse social outcomes. Many people with mental health conditions prioritise improvement in social and functional outcomes over reduction in clinical symptoms. Interventions that improve social circumstances in this population should thus be considered a priority for research and policy.

methodsThis rapid evidence synthesis reports on randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve social circumstances across eight social domains (Housing and homelessness; money and basic needs; work and education; social isolation and connectedness; family, intimate and caring relationships; victimisation and exploitation; offending; and rights, inclusion and citizenship) in people with mental health conditions. Economic evaluations were also identified. A comprehensive, stepped search approach of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted.

resultsOne systematic review and 102 randomised controlled trials were included. We did not find RCT evidence for interventions to improve family, intimate and caring relationships and only one or two trials for each of improving money and basic needs, victimisation and exploitation, and rights, inclusion and citizenship. Evidence from successful interventions in improving homelessness (Housing First) and employment (Individual Placement and Support) suggests that high-intensity interventions which focus on the desired social outcome and provide comprehensive multidisciplinary support could influence positive change in social circumstances of people with mental health conditions. Objective social isolation could be improved using a range of approaches such as supported socialisation and social skills training but interventions to reduce offending showed few benefits. Studies with cost and cost-effectiveness components were generally supportive of interventions to improve housing and vocational outcomes. More research is needed to ensure that social circumstances accompanied by high risks of further exacerbation of mental health conditions are adequately addressed.

conclusionsAlthough there is a large body of literature examining how to support some aspects of life for people with mental health conditions, more high-quality evidence is required in other social domains. Integration into mental health services of interventions targeting social circumstances could significantly improve a number of social outcomes.

Indexed as

Ill-Housed PersonsMental DisordersMental Health ServicesHumansMental HealthSocial IsolationInterventionMental health conditionsReviewSocial circumstances

Identifiers

PMID35484521
PMCPMC9047264

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.