Comorbidity of Physical Disorders Among Patients With Severe Mental Illness With and Without Substance Use Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 192-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ifeoma N. Onyeka ◽  
Margrethe Collier Høegh ◽  
Eldbjørg Marie Nåheim Eien ◽  
Bright I. Nwaru ◽  
Ingrid Melle
2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-215975
Author(s):  
Emily J. Tweed ◽  
Rachel M. Thomson ◽  
Dan Lewer ◽  
Colin Sumpter ◽  
Amir Kirolos ◽  
...  

BackgroundPeople affected by homelessness, imprisonment, substance use, sex work or severe mental illness experience substantial excess ill health and premature death. Though these experiences often co-occur, health outcomes associated with their overlap have not previously been reviewed. We synthesised existing evidence on mortality, morbidity, self-rated health and quality of life among people affected by more than one of these experiences.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO for peer-reviewed English-language observational studies from high-income countries published between 1 January 1998 and 11 June 2018. Two authors undertook independent screening, with risk of bias assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings were summarised by narrative synthesis and random-effect meta-analysis.ResultsFrom 15 976 citations, 2517 studies underwent full-text screening, and 444 were included. The most common exposure combinations were imprisonment/substance use (31% of data points) and severe mental illness/substance use (27%); only 1% reported outcomes associated with more than two exposures. Infections were the most common outcomes studied, with blood-borne viruses accounting for 31% of all data points. Multiple exposures were associated with poorer outcomes in 80% of data points included (sign test for effect direction, p<0.001). Meta-analysis suggested increased all-cause mortality among people with multiple versus fewer exposures (HR: 1.57 and 95% CI: 1.38 to 1.77), though heterogeneity was high.ConclusionPeople affected by multiple exclusionary processes experience profound health inequalities, though there are important gaps in the research landscape. Addressing the health needs of these populations is likely to require co-ordinated action across multiple sectors, such as healthcare, criminal justice, drug treatment, housing and social security.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018097189.


2018 ◽  
Vol 193 ◽  
pp. 91-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felipe Ornell ◽  
Fernanda Hansen ◽  
Felipe Barreto Schuch ◽  
Fernando Pezzini Rebelatto ◽  
Ana Laura Tavares ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 214 (5) ◽  
pp. 260-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Lean ◽  
Miriam Fornells-Ambrojo ◽  
Alyssa Milton ◽  
Brynmor Lloyd-Evans ◽  
Bronwyn Harrison-Stewart ◽  
...  

BackgroundSelf-management is intended to empower individuals in their recovery by providing the skills and confidence they need to take active steps in recognising and managing their own health problems. Evidence supports such interventions in a range of long-term physical health conditions, but a recent systematic synthesis is not available for people with severe mental health problems.AimsTo evaluate the effectiveness of self-management interventions for adults with severe mental illness (SMI).MethodA systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted. A meta-analysis of symptomatic, relapse, recovery, functioning and quality of life outcomes was conducted, using RevMan.ResultsA total of 37 trials were included with 5790 participants. From the meta-analysis, self-management interventions conferred benefits in terms of reducing symptoms and length of admission, and improving functioning and quality of life both at the end of treatment and at follow-up. Overall the effect size was small to medium. The evidence for self-management interventions on readmissions was mixed. However, self-management did have a significant effect compared with control on subjective measures of recovery such as hope and empowerment at follow-up, and self-rated recovery and self-efficacy at both time points.ConclusionThere is evidence that the provision of self-management interventions alongside standard care improves outcomes for people with SMI. Self-management interventions should form part of the standard package of care provided to people with SMI and should be prioritised in guidelines: research on best methods of implementing such interventions in routine practice is needed.Declaration of interestsNone.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document