Severe mental illness and health service utilisation for nonpsychiatric medical disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric comorbidity is known to impact upon use of nonpsychiatric health services. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the specific impact of severe mental illness (SMI) on the use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services for nonpsychiatric medical disorders. METHODS AND FINDINGS: PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies up to October 2018. An updated search was carried out up to the end of February 2020. Studies were included if they assessed the impact of SMI on nonpsychiatric inpatient, emergency, and primary care service use in adults. Study designs eligible for review included observational cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analyses of the effect of SMI on inpatient admissions, length of hospital stay, 30-day hospital readmission rates, and emergency department use were performed. This review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019119516). Seventy-four studies were eligible for review. All were observational cohort or case-control studies carried out in high-income countries. Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 10,777,210. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The majority of studies (n = 45) were deemed to be of good quality. Narrative analysis showed that SMI led to increases in use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services. Meta-analyses revealed that patients with SMI were more likely to be admitted as nonpsychiatric inpatients (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-2.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 100%), had hospital stays that were increased by 0.59 days (pooled standardised mean difference = 0.59 days, 95% CI 0.36-0.83, p < 0.001, I2 = 100%), were more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 30 days (pooled OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.28-1.47, p < 0.001, I2 = 83%), and were more likely to attend the emergency department (pooled OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.41-2.76, p < 0.001, I2 = 99%) compared to patients without SMI. Study limitations include considerable heterogeneity across studies, meaning that results of meta-analyses should be interpreted with caution, and the fact that it was not always possible to determine whether service use outcomes definitively excluded mental health treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that SMI impacts significantly upon the use of nonpsychiatric health services. Illustrating and quantifying this helps to build a case for and guide the delivery of system-wide integration of mental and physical health services.

The impact of mental health and psychosocial support programmes on children and young people's mental health in the context of humanitarian emergencies in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Humanitarian emergencies pose a significant global health challenge for children and young people's mental and psychological health. This systematic review investigates the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) programmes delivered to children and young people affected by humanitarian emergencies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Twelve electronic databases, key websites and citation checking were undertaken. Forty-three randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between January 1980 and May 2023 were included in the review. Overall, the findings suggest that cognitive behavioural therapy may improve depression symptoms in children and young people affected by humanitarian emergencies. Narrative exposure therapy may reduce feelings of guilt. However, the impact of the other MHPSS modalities across outcomes is inconsistent. In some contexts, providing psychosocial programmes involving creative activities may increase the symptoms of depression in children and young people. These findings emphasise the need for the development of MHPSS programmes that can safely and effectively address the diverse needs of children and young people living in adversarial environments.

Intersectionality as a tool for clinical ethics consultation in mental healthcare.

Bioethics increasingly recognizes the impact of discriminatory practices based on social categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation or ability on clinical practice. Accordingly, major bioethics associations have stressed that identifying and countering structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations is a professional obligation of clinical ethics consultants. Yet, it is still unclear how clinical ethics consultants can fulfill this obligation. More specifically, clinical ethics needs both theoretical tools to analyze and practical strategies to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations. Intersectionality, a concept developed in Black feminist scholarship, is increasingly considered in bioethical theory. It stresses how social structures and practices determine social positions of privilege and disadvantage in multiple, mutually co-constitutive systems of oppression. This article aims to investigate how intersectionality can contribute to addressing structural discrimination in clinical ethics consultations with a particular focus on mental healthcare. To this end, we critically review existing approaches for clinical ethics consultants to address structural racism in clinical ethics consultations and extend them by intersectional considerations. We argue that intersectionality is a suitable tool to address structural discrimination within clinical ethics consultations and show that it can be practically implemented in two complementary ways: 1) as an analytic approach and 2) as a critical practice.