Interventions to support mental health in people with long COVID: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC) is a multisystem disease with symptoms lasting weeks or months beyond the acute COVID-19 infection. Several manifestations are reported by people with LC, including effects on mental health, with varying degrees of psychological distress and disturbances to daily activities. Research conducted to identify effective interventions to support mental health among people with LC has been limited by the breadth and scope of studies. AIM: This review aims to identify interventions being tested to support mental health of people with LC. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted by searching five databases for articles published between January 2020 and early October 2022 to identify research evaluating interventions focused on improving mental health symptoms associated with LC. Results from all sources were checked for eligibility by two reviewers, and agreements were resolved by discussion. Gray literature and reference list of included studies and relevant reviews were scrutinised to identify any additional studies. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer for accuracy. RESULTS: Of the 940 studies identified, 17 were included, the design of which varied but included mainly case studies (n = 6) and clinical trials (n = 5). Several interventions were described, ranging from single interventions (e.g., pharmacologic) to more holistic, comprehensive suites of services (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Several mental health outcomes were measured, mostly anxiety and depression. All included studies were reported to be associated with improvements in participants' mental health outcomes. CONCLUSION: This scoping review identified studies reporting on a variety of interventions to support mental health among people with LC. Although positive changes were reported by all studies, some were case studies and thus their findings must be interpreted with caution. There is a need for more research to be conducted to identify the impact of interventions on mental health of people with LC.

Dissection-related tandem occlusion may be different from atherothrombotic tandem occlusion.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal endovascular treatment for tandem occlusion in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke remains unknown. The aim of this study was to examine how the aetiology of carotid pathology, dissection versus atherothrombosis, affects clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was obtained from prospectively collected registries from two stroke centres between April 2016 and December 2020. Tandem cases with complete cervical internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion or near-total occlusion (≥90% stenosis) were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on carotid pathology: dissection versus atherothrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included: 36 were dissection and 98 were atherothrombosis. The dissection group had better clinical outcomes compared to the atherothrombosis group, although after adjusting for age and stroke risk factors differences were non-significant. In the non-stented cohort, the dissection patients achieved a better outcome (modified Rankin scale 0-2) than atherothrombotic patients (57% vs. 34%, p=0.04) at 90-days. CONCLUSION: Dissection-related tandem occlusions appear to have different clinical features from atherothrombotic tandem occlusions which suggests different management strategies are needed.

Setting research priorities for management and treatment of hyperhidrosis: the results of the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Hyperhidrosis is a common skin condition characterized by excessive sweating, which can negatively impact on quality of life. It is under-researched compared with other conditions of similar prevalence. AIM: To generate a Top 10 list of research priorities for the treatment and management of hyperhidrosis, with equal input from people with hyperhidrosis and healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A priority setting partnership (PSP) was established and processes from the James Lind Alliance Handbook were followed. An online survey asked participants what questions they would like research to answer. These questions were grouped into 'indicative questions', which were ranked in a second survey of 45 indicative questions. The top 23 questions were then taken to a final workshop event attended by key stakeholders, and ranked to generate the Top 10 list of research priorities. RESULTS: There were 592 questions submitted by 268 respondents for the first survey. For the second survey, 286 participants ranked the indicative questions in order of priority. At the final workshop, the Top 10 list was generated. The top three priorities were: (i) Are there any safe and effective permanent solutions for hyperhidrosis? (ii) What is the most effective and safe oral treatment (drugs taken by mouth) for hyperhidrosis? and (iii) What are the most effective and safe ways to reduce sweating in particular areas of the body? CONCLUSIONS: There are many unanswered research questions that both people with hyperhidrosis and HCPs would like to see answered. The results from this PSP will help to ensure future research funding can be directed to these areas of priority.

G protein-coupled estrogen receptor-1 enhances excitatory synaptic responses in the entorhinal cortex.

Activation of estrogen receptors is thought to modulate cognitive function in the hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and striatum by affecting both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic transmission. The entorhinal cortex is a major source of cortical sensory and associational input to the hippocampus, but it is unclear whether either estrogens or progestogens may modulate cognitive function through effects on synaptic transmission in the entorhinal cortex. This study assessed the effects of the brief application of either 17-ß estradiol (E2) or progesterone on excitatory glutamatergic synaptic transmission in the female rat entorhinal cortex in vitro. Rats were ovariectomized on postnatal day (PD) 63 and also received subdermal E2 implants to maintain constant low levels of circulating E2 on par with estrus. Electrophysiological recordings from brain slices were obtained between PD70 and PD86, and field excitatory postsynaptic potentials (fEPSPs) reflecting the activation of the superficial layers of the entorhinal cortex were evoked by the stimulation of layer I afferents. The application of E2 (10 nM) for 20 min resulted in a small increase in the amplitude of fEPSPs that reversed during the 30-min washout period. The application of the ERα agonist propylpyrazoletriol (PPT) (100 nM) or the ß agonist DPN (1 µM) did not significantly affect synaptic responses. However, the application of the G protein-coupled estrogen receptor-1 (GPER1) agonist G1 (100 nM) induced a reversible increase in fEPSP amplitude similar to that induced by E2. Furthermore, the potentiation of responses induced by G1 was blocked by the GPER1 antagonist G15 (1 µM). Application of progesterone (100 nM) or its metabolite allopregnanolone (1 µM) did not significantly affect synaptic responses. The potentiation of synaptic transmission in the entorhinal cortex induced by the activation of GPER1 receptors may contribute to the modulation of cognitive function in female rats.

Examining the UK Covid-19 mortality paradox: Pandemic preparedness, healthcare expenditure, and the nursing workforce.

AIM: To examine the UK pandemic preparedness in light of health expenditure, nursing workforce, and mortality rates in and relation to nursing leadership. BACKGROUND: The Global Health Security Index categorized the preparedness of 195 countries to face a biological threat on a variety of measures, producing an overall score. The United States of America and the United Kingdom were ranked 1st and 2nd most prepared in 2019. METHOD: A cross-nation comparison of the top 36 countries ranked by Global Health Security Index score using a variety of online sources, including key data about each nation's expenditure on health and the nursing workforce, and compared these with mortality data for COVID-19. RESULTS: The extent of a country's pandemic preparedness, expenditure on healthcare and magnitude of the nursing workforce does not appear to impact mortality rates at this stage of the pandemic which is something of a paradox. CONCLUSION: It is important that arrangements for dealing with future global pandemics involve a range of agencies and experts in the field, including nurse leaders. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: To achieve the best outcomes for patients, nurse leaders should be involved in policy forums at all levels of government to ensure nurses can influence health policy.

Short-term urinary catheters and their risks: an integrated systematic review.

This thematic review was part of a bigger literature review into the effects of short-term urinary catheters on patients who are discharged home from an acute hospital. This integrated review examined the risks associated with short-term urinary catheters. The MEDLINE, British Nursing Index and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published between 2013 and 2018 that researched the effects of short-term urinary catheters on patients. Twelve research studies were included, which showed the presence of short-term indwelling urinary catheters increased the risk of infection, length of hospital stay and mortality rates. Short-term urinary catheters should be strictly monitored and removed as soon as they are not required.

Short-term urinary catheters and their risks: an integrated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This thematic review was part of a bigger literature review into the effects of short-term urinary catheters on patients who are discharged home from an acute hospital. AIMS: This integrated review examined the risks associated with short-term urinary catheters. METHODS: The MEDLINE, British Nursing Index and CINAHL databases were searched for studies published between 2013 and 2018 that researched the effects of short-term urinary catheters on patients. FINDINGS: Twelve research studies were included, which showed the presence of short-term indwelling urinary catheters increased the risk of infection, length of hospital stay and mortality rates. CONCLUSION: Short-term urinary catheters should be strictly monitored and removed as soon as they are not required.

Peer support for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Peer support provides the opportunity for peers with experiential knowledge of a mental illness to give emotional, appraisal and informational assistance to current service users, and is becoming an important recovery-oriented approach in healthcare for people with mental illness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia or other serious mental disorders, compared to standard care or other supportive or psychosocial interventions not from peers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials on 27 July 2016 and 4 July 2017. There were no limitations regarding language, date, document type or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected all randomised controlled clinical studies involving people diagnosed with schizophrenia or other related serious mental illness that compared peer support to standard care or other psychosocial interventions and that did not involve 'peer' individual/group(s). We included studies that met our inclusion criteria and reported useable data. Our primary outcomes were service use and global state (relapse). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors of this review complied with the Cochrane recommended standard of conduct for data screening and collection. Two review authors independently screened the studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion until the authors reached a consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary data, and the mean difference and its 95% CI for continuous data. We used a random-effects model for analyses. We assessed the quality of evidence and created a 'Summary of findings' table using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 13 studies with 2479 participants. All included studies compared peer support in addition to standard care with standard care alone. We had significant concern regarding risk of bias of included studies as over half had an unclear risk of bias for the majority of the risk domains (i.e. random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, attrition and selective reporting). Additional concerns regarding blinding of participants and outcome assessment, attrition and selective reporting were especially serious, as about a quarter of the included studies were at high risk of bias for these domains.All included studies provided useable data for analyses but only two trials provided useable data for two of our main outcomes of interest, and there were no data for one of our primary outcomes, relapse. Peer support appeared to have little or no effect on hospital admission at medium term (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.75; participants = 19; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence) or all-cause death in the long term (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.31; participants = 555; studies = 1, very low-quality evidence). There were no useable data for our other prespecified important outcomes: days in hospital, clinically important change in global state (improvement), clinically important change in quality of life for peer supporter and service user, or increased cost to society.One trial compared peer support with clinician-led support but did not report any useable data for the above main outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, very limited data are available for the effects of peer support for people with schizophrenia. The risk of bias within trials is of concern and we were unable to use the majority of data reported in the included trials. In addition, the few that were available, were of very low quality. The current body of evidence is insufficient to either refute or support the use of peer-support interventions for people with schizophrenia and other mental illness.

Valproate preparations for agitation in dementia.

BACKGROUND: Agitation has been reported in up to 90% of people with dementia. Agitation in people with dementia worsens carer burden, increases the risk of injury, and adds to the need for institutionalisation. Valproate preparations have been used in an attempt to control agitation in dementia, but their safety and efficacy have been questioned. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of valproate preparations used to treat agitation in people with dementia, including the impact on carers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 7 December 2017 using the terms: valproic OR valproate OR divalproex. ALOIS contains records from all major health care databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials that assessed valproate preparations for agitation in people with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the retrieved studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted data and assessed methodological quality of the included studies. If necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional data, including relevant subscales, or for other missing information. We pooled data in meta-analyses where possible. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2009. We found no new studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: The review included five studies with 430 participants. Studies varied in the preparations of valproate, mean doses (480 mg/day to 1000 mg/day), duration of treatment (three weeks to six weeks), and outcome measures used. The studies were generally well conducted although some methodological information was missing and one study was at high risk of attrition bias.The quality of evidence related to our primary efficacy outcome of agitation varied from moderate to very low. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that measured behaviour with the total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score (range 0 to 108) and with the BPRS agitation factor (range 0 to 18). They found that there was probably little or no effect of valproate treatment over six weeks (total BPRS: mean difference (MD) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to 2.59; 202 participants, 2 studies; BPRS agitation factor: MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.15; 202 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence from three studies which measured agitation with the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Index (CMAI) were consistent with a lack of effect of valproate treatment on agitation. There was variable quality evidence on other behaviour outcomes reported in single studies of no difference between groups or a benefit for the placebo group.Three studies, which measured cognitive function using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), found little or no effect of valproate over six weeks, but we were uncertain about this result because the quality of the evidence was very low. Two studies that assessed functional ability using the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS) (range 6 to 30) found that there was probably slightly worse function in the valproate-treated group, which was of uncertain clinical importance (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.98; 203 participants, 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence).Analysis of adverse effects and serious adverse events (SAE) indicated a higher incidence in valproate-treated participants. A meta-analysis of three studies showed that there may have been a higher rate of adverse effects among valproate-treated participants than among controls (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.14; 381 participants, 3 studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis of the number of SAE for the two studies that reported such data indicated that participants treated with valproate preparations were more likely to experience SAEs (OR 4.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 22.74; 228 participants, 2 studies), but the very low quality of the data made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions regarding SAEs. Individual adverse events that were more frequent in the valproate-treated group included sedation, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea), and urinary tract infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review corroborates earlier findings that valproate preparations are probably ineffective in treating agitation in people with dementia, but are associated with a higher rate of adverse effects, and possibly of SAEs. On the basis of this evidence, valproate therapy cannot be recommended for management of agitation in dementia. Further research may not be justified, particularly in light of the increased risk of adverse effects in this often frail group of people. Research would be better focused on effective non-pharmacological interventions for this patient group, or, for those situations where medication may be needed, further investigation of how to use other medications as effectively and safely as possible.

Endovascular therapy for acute ischaemic stroke: the Pragmatic Ischaemic Stroke Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Pragmatic Ischaemic Thrombectomy Evaluation (PISTE) trial was a multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone with IVT and adjunctive intra-arterial mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in patients who had acute ischaemic stroke with large artery occlusive anterior circulation stroke confirmed on CT angiography (CTA). DESIGN: Eligible patients had IVT started within 4.5 hours of stroke symptom onset. Those randomised to additional MT underwent thrombectomy using any Conformité Européene (CE)-marked device, with target interval times for IVT start to arterial puncture of <90 min. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving independence defined by a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2 at day 90. RESULTS: Ten UK centres enrolled 65 patients between April 2013 and April 2015. Median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 (IQR 13-21). Median stroke onset to IVT start was 120 min. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in disability-free survival at day 90 with MT (absolute difference 11%, adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.65 to 6.94, p=0.20). Secondary analyses showed significantly greater likelihood of full neurological recovery (mRS 0-1) at day 90 (OR 7.6, 95% CI 1.6 to 37.2, p=0.010). In the per-protocol population (n=58), the primary and most secondary clinical outcomes significantly favoured MT (absolute difference in mRS 0-2 of 22% and adjusted OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 19.7, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not find a significant difference between treatment groups for the primary end point. However, the effect size was consistent with published data and across primary and secondary end points. Proceeding as fast as possible to MT after CTA confirmation of large artery occlusion on a background of intravenous alteplase is safe, improves excellent clinical outcomes and, in the per-protocol population, improves disability-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01745692; Results.

Smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with a serious mental illness are more likely to smoke more and to be more dependent smokers than the general population. This may be due to a wide range of factors that could include a common aetiology to both smoking and the illness, self medication, smoking to alleviate adverse effects of medications, boredom in the existing environment, or a combination of these factors. It is important to undertake this review to facilitate improvements in both the health and safety of people with serious mental illness who smoke, and to reduce the overall burden of costs (both financial and health) to the smoker and, eventually, to the taxpayer. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of smoking cessation advice for people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Specialized Trials Register up to 2 April 2015, which is based on regular searches of CENTRAL, BIOSIS, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and trial registries. We also undertook unsystematic searches of a sample of the component databases (BNI, CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO), up to 2 April 2015, and searched references of all identified studies SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that focussed on smoking cessation advice versus standard care or comparing smoking cessation advice with other more focussed methods of delivering care or information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors (PK, AC, and DB) independently screened search results but did not identify any trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any RCTs that evaluated advice regarding smoking cessation for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to smokers with serious mental illness is possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: People with serious mental illness are more likely to smoke than the general population. Yet we could not find any high quality evidence to guide the smoking cessation advice healthcare professionals pass onto service users. This is an area where trials are possible and needed.

HIV prevention advice for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness have rates of Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) infection higher than expected in the general population for the same demographic area. Despite this elevated prevalence, UK national strategies around sexual health and HIV prevention do not state that people with serious mental illness are a high risk group. However, a significant proportion in this group are sexually active and engage in HIV-risk behaviours including having multiple sexual partners, infrequent use of condoms and trading sex for money or drugs. Therefore we propose the provision of HIV prevention advice could enhance the physical and social well being of this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of HIV prevention advice in reducing morbidity, mortality and preserving the quality of life in people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (24 January 2012; 4 July 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all randomised controlled trials focusing on HIV prevention advice versus standard care or comparing HIV prevention advice with other more focused methods of delivering care or information for people with serious mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors (NW, AC, AA, GT) independently screened search results and did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review's criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any randomised studies that evaluated advice regarding HIV for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to both people with serious mental illness and HIV risk are possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers, clinicians, researchers and service users need to collaborate to produce guidance on how best to provide advice for people with serious mental illness in preventing the spread of HIV infection. It is entirely feasible that this could be within the context of a well-designed simple large randomised study.

Oral health education (advice and training) for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness not only experience an erosion of functioning in day-to-day life over a protracted period of time, but evidence also suggests that they have a greater risk of experiencing oral disease and greater oral treatment needs than the general population. Poor oral hygiene has been linked to coronary heart disease, diabetes, and respiratory disease and impacts on quality of life, affecting everyday functioning such as eating, comfort, appearance, social acceptance, and self esteem. Oral health, however, is often not seen as a priority in people suffering with serious mental illness. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of oral health education (advice and training) with or without monitoring for people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (5 November 2015), which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PubMed, PsycINFO, and clinical trials registries. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on oral health education (advice and training) with or without monitoring for people with serious mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1358 participants. None of the studies provided useable data for the key outcomes of not having seen a dentist in the past year, not brushing teeth twice a day, chronic pain, clinically important adverse events, and service use. Data for leaving the study early and change in plaque index scores were provided. Oral health education compared with standard careWhen 'oral health education' was compared with 'standard care', there was no clear difference between the groups for numbers leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 50, RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 6.24, moderate-quality evidence), while for dental state: no clinically important change in plaque index, an effect was found. Although this was statistically significant and favoured the intervention group, it is unclear if it was clinically important (1 RCT, n = 40, MD - 0.50 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.38, very low quality evidence).These limited data may have implications regarding improvement in oral hygiene. Motivational interview + oral health education compared with oral health educationSimilarly, when 'motivational interview + oral health education' was compared with 'oral health education', there was no clear difference for the outcome of leaving the study early (1 RCT, n = 60 RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.23, moderate-quality evidence), while for dental state: no clinically important change in plaque index, an effect favouring the intervention group was found (1 RCT, n = 56, MD - 0.60 95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.18 very low-quality evidence). These limited, clinically opaque data may or may not have implications regarding improvement in oral hygiene. Monitoring compared with no monitoringFor this comparison, only data for leaving the study early were available. We found a difference in numbers leaving early, favouring the 'no monitoring' group (1 RCT, n = 1682, RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14, moderate-quality evidence). However, these data are problematic. The control denominator is implied and not clear, and follow-up did not depend only on individual participants, but also on professional caregivers and organisations - the latter changing frequently resulting in poor follow-up, but not a good reflection of the acceptability of the monitoring to patients. For this comparison, no data were available for 'no clinically important change in plaque index'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence from trials that oral health advice helps people with serious mental illness in terms of clinically meaningful outcomes. It makes sense to follow guidelines and recommendations such as those put forward by the British Society for Disability and Oral Health working group until better evidence is generated. Pioneering trialists have shown that evaluative studies relevant to oral health advice for people with serious mental illness are possible.

Physical health care monitoring for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Current guidance suggests that we should monitor the physical health of people with serious mental illness, and there has been a significant financial investment over recent years to provide this. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical health monitoring, compared with standard care for people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (October 2009, update in October 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on physical health monitoring versus standard care, or comparing i) self monitoring versus monitoring by a healthcare professional; ii) simple versus complex monitoring; iii) specific versus non-specific checks; iv) once only versus regular checks; or v) different guidance materials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Initially, review authors (GT, AC, SM) independently screened the search results and identified three studies as possibly fulfilling the review's criteria. On examination, however, all three were subsequently excluded. Forty-two additional citations were identified in October 2012 and screened by two review authors (JX and MW), 11 of which underwent full screening. MAIN RESULTS: No relevant randomised trials which assess the effectiveness of physical health monitoring in people with serious mental illness have been completed. We identified one ongoing study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is still no evidence from randomised trials to support or refute current guidance and practice. Guidance and practice are based on expert consensus, clinical experience and good intentions rather than high quality evidence.

HIV prevention advice for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness have rates of Human Immuno-deficiency Virus (HIV) infection higher than expected in the general population for the same demographic area. Despite this elevated prevalence, UK national strategies around sexual health and HIV prevention do not state that people with serious mental illness are a high risk group. However, a significant proportion in this group are sexually active and engage in HIV-risk behaviours including having multiple sexual partners, infrequent use of condoms and trading sex for money or drugs. Therefore we propose the provision of HIV prevention advice could enhance the physical and social well being of this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of HIV prevention advice in reducing morbidity, mortality and preserving the quality of life in people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (24 January, 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and registries of clinical trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include all randomised controlled trials focusing on HIV prevention advice versus standard care or comparing HIV prevention advice with other more focused methods of delivering care or information for people with serious mental illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors (NW, AC, AA, GT) independently screened search results and did not identify any studies that fulfilled the review's criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any randomised studies that evaluated advice regarding HIV for people with serious mental illness. The excluded studies illustrate that randomisation of packages of care relevant to both people with serious mental illness and HIV risk are possible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers, clinicians, researchers and service users need to collaborate to produce guidance on how best to provide advice for people with serious mental illness in preventing the spread of HIV infection. It is entirely feasible that this could be within the context of a well-designed simple large randomised study.

General physical health advice for people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: There is currently much focus on provision of general physical health advice to people with serious mental illness and there has been increasing pressure for services to take responsibility for providing this. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of general physical healthcare advice for people with serious mental illness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search October 2012) which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There is no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised clinical trials focusing on general physical health advice for people with serious mental illness.. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Seven studies are now included in this review. For the comparison of physical healthcare advice versus standard care we identified six studies (total n = 964) of limited quality. For measures of quality of life one trial found no difference (n = 54, 1 RCT, MD Lehman scale 0.20, CI -0.47 to 0.87, very low quality of evidence) but another two did for the Quality of Life Medical Outcomes Scale - mental component (n = 487, 2 RCTs, MD 3.70, CI 1.76 to 5.64). There was no difference between groups for the outcome of death (n = 487, 2 RCTs, RR 0.98, CI 0.27 to 3.56, low quality of evidence). For service use two studies presented favourable results for health advice, uptake of ill-health prevention services was significantly greater in the advice group (n = 363, 1 RCT, MD 36.90, CI 33.07 to 40.73) and service use: one or more primary care visit was significantly higher in the advice group (n = 80, 1 RCT, RR 1.77, CI 1.09 to 2.85). Economic data were equivocal. Attrition was large (> 30%) but similar for both groups (n = 964, 6 RCTs, RR 1.11, CI 0.92 to 1.35). Comparisons of one type of physical healthcare advice with another were grossly underpowered and equivocal. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: General physical health could lead to people with serious mental illness accessing more health services which, in turn, could mean they see longer-term benefits such as reduced mortality or morbidity. On the other hand, it is possible clinicians are expending much effort, time and financial resources on giving ineffective advice. The main results in this review are based on low or very low quality data. There is some limited and poor quality evidence that the provision of general physical healthcare advice can improve health-related quality of life in the mental component but not the physical component, but this evidence is based on data from one study only. This is an important area for good research reporting outcome of interest to carers and people with serious illnesses as well as researchers and fundholders.

Facilitating knowledge of mental health nurses to undertake physical health interventions: a pre-test/post-test evaluation.

AIM: The aim of this project was to develop and deliver an evidence-based educational package with a physical and mental health focus to clinicians and other health care workers in mental health settings. BACKGROUND: For individuals who experience mental disorders, pharmacotherapy is often considered as a first line of treatment. However, owing to adverse drug reactions and pre-existing physical conditions, outcomes for clients/service users may be compromised. Mortality and morbidity rates of people diagnosed with a serious mental illness caused by physical health conditions do not compare favourably with the general population. This paper reports on a physical skills project that was developed in collaboration between the University of Huddersfield and South West Yorkshire Partnership Foundation Trust. METHOD: Pre-post study design: five workshops were conducted in the fields of intramuscular injections, diabetes, health improvement, oral health and wound care. A total of 180 pairs of questionnaires to assess practitioner and student skills and knowledge were administered to participants before and after workshops. All workshops resulted in a statistically significant improvement in subject skills and knowledge scores (P < 0.001 in all cases). Questionnaires also elicited participant satisfaction with the workshops: over 99% of participants reported being 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the workshops. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Mental health nurses are the largest group of registered practitioners working in the mental health setting and thus need to be harnessed to make a positive contribution to the improvement of the physical health status of service users with a serious mental illness.