There is growing interest in lifestyle interventions as stand-alone and add-on therapies in mental health care due to their potential benefits for both physical and mental health outcomes. We evaluated lifestyle interventions focusing on physical activity, diet, and sleep in adults with severe mental illness (SMI) and the evidence for their effectiveness. To this end, we conducted a meta-review and searched major electronic databases for articles published prior to 09/2022 and updated our search in 03/2024. We identified 89 relevant systematic reviews and assessed their quality using the SIGN checklist. Based on the findings of our meta-review and on clinical expertise of the authors, we formulated seven recommendations. In brief, evidence supports the application of lifestyle interventions that combine behavioural change techniques, dietary modification, and physical activity to reduce weight and improve cardiovascular health parameters in adults with SMI. Furthermore, physical activity should be used as an adjunct treatment to improve mental health in adults with SMI, including psychotic symptoms and cognition in adults with schizophrenia or depressive symptoms in adults with major depression. To ameliorate sleep quality, cognitive behavioural informed interventions can be considered. Additionally, we provide an overview of key gaps in the current literature. Future studies should integrate both mental and physical health outcomes to reflect the multi-faceted benefits of lifestyle interventions. Moreover, our meta-review highlighted a relative dearth of evidence relating to interventions in adults with bipolar disorder and to nutritional and sleep interventions. Future research could help establish lifestyle interventions as a core component of mental health care.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
BACKGROUND: Reviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication.
METHODS: Reviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction.
RESULTS: 1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007-2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.
ABSTRACT: Cannabis is the third most used psychoactive substance worldwide. The legal status of cannabis is changing in many Western countries, while we have very limited knowledge of the public health impact of cannabis-related harms. There is a need for a summary of the evidence of harms and risks attributed to cannabis use, in order to inform the definition of cannabis risky use. We have conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews, aiming to define cannabis-related harms. We included systematic reviews published until July 2018 from six different databases and following the PRISMA guidelines. To assess study quality we applied the AMSTAR 2 tool. A total of 44 systematic reviews, including 1,053 different studies, were eligible for inclusion. Harm was categorized in three dimensions: mental health, somatic harm and physical injury (including mortality). Evidence shows a clear association between cannabis use and psychosis, affective disorders, anxiety, sleep disorders, cognitive failures, respiratory adverse events, cancer, cardiovascular outcomes, and gastrointestinal disorders. Moreover, cannabis use is a risk factor for motor vehicle collision, suicidal behavior and partner and child violence. Cannabis use is a risk factor for several medical conditions and negative social consequences. There is still little data on the dose-dependency of these effects; evidence that is essential in order to define, from a public health perspective, what can be considered risky use of cannabis. This definition should be based on quantitative and qualitative criteria that informs and permits the evaluation of current approaches to a regulated cannabis market. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
We summarized and compared meta‐analyses of pharmacological and non‐pharmacological interventions targeting physical health outcomes among people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Major databases were searched until June 1, 2018. Of 3,709 search engine hits, 27 meta‐analyses were included, representing 128 meta‐analyzed trials and 47,231 study participants. While meta‐analyses were generally of adequate or high quality, meta‐analyzed studies were less so. The most effective weight reduction interventions were individual lifestyle counseling (standardized mean difference, SMD = –0.98) and exercise interventions (SMD = –0.96), followed by psychoeducation (SMD = –0.77), aripiprazole augmentation (SMD = –0.73), topiramate (SMD = –0.72), d‐fenfluramine (SMD = –0.54) and metformin (SMD = –0.53). Regarding waist circumference reduction, aripiprazole augmentation (SMD = –1.10) and topiramate (SMD = –0.69) demonstrated the best evidence, followed by dietary interventions (SMD = –0.39). Dietary interventions were the only to significantly improve (diastolic) blood pressure (SMD = –0.39). Switching from olanzapine to quetiapine or aripiprazole (SMD = –0.71) and metformin (SMD = –0.65) demonstrated best efficacy for reducing glucose levels, followed by glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonists (SMD = –0.39), dietary interventions (SMD = –0.37) and aripiprazole augmentation (SMD=–0.34), whereas insulin resistance improved the most with metformin (SMD = –0.75) and rosiglitazone (SMD = –0.44). Topiramate had the greatest efficacy for triglycerides (SMD = –0.68) and low‐density lipoprotein (LDL)‐cholesterol (SMD = –0.80), whereas metformin had the greatest beneficial effects on total cholesterol (SMD = –0.51) and high‐density lipoprotein (HDL)‐cholesterol (SMD = 0.45). Lifestyle interventions yielded small effects for triglycerides, total cholesterol and LDL‐cholesterol (SMD = –0.35 to –0.37). Only exercise interventions increased exercise capacity (SMD = 1.81). Despite frequent physical comorbidities and premature mortality mainly due to these increased physical health risks, the current evidence for pharmacological and non‐pharmacological interventions in people with schizophrenia to prevent and treat these conditions is still limited and more larger trials are urgently needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: The therapeutic effects of cannabinoid compounds have been the center of many investigations. This study provides a synthesis on all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) that assessed the use of cannabinoids as a therapeutic approach. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of SRs, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP). METHODS: A broad search was conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to retrieve any Cochrane SRs that assessed the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids as a therapeutic approach. The results and key characteristics of all reviews included were summarized and discussed. RESULTS: Eight SRs were included. They assessed the use of cannabinoids for the following types of conditions: neurological (two SRs), psychiatric (two SRs), rheumatological (one SR), infectious (one SR) and oncological (two SRs). There was moderate-quality evidence showing that the use of cannabinoids reduced nausea and vomiting among adults, compared with placebo. Additionally, there was moderate-quality evidence showing that there was no difference between cannabinoids and prochlorperazine regarding the number of participants who reported vomiting, in this same population. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified eight Cochrane systematic reviews that provided evidence of unknown to moderate quality regarding the use of cannabinoids as a therapeutic intervention. Further studies are still imperative for solid conclusions to be reached regarding practical recommendations.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
BACKGROUND: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories – strategies targeting:1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
BACKGROUND: One target of the Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve "universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all". A fundamental concern of governments in striving for this goal is how to finance such a health system. This concern is very relevant for low-income countries.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on financial arrangements, and informing refinements in the framework for financial arrangements presented in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language, or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of financial arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment, or financial burden of patients, e.g. out-of-pocket payment, catastrophic disease expenditure) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 reviews and included 15 in this overview, on: collection of funds (2 reviews), insurance schemes (1 review), purchasing of services (1 review), recipient incentives (6 reviews), and provider incentives (5 reviews). The reviews were published between 2008 and 2015; focused on 13 subcategories; and reported results from 276 studies: 115 (42%) randomised trials, 11 (4%) non-randomised trials, 23 (8%) controlled before-after studies, 51 (19%) interrupted time series, 9 (3%) repeated measures, and 67 (24%) other non-randomised studies. Forty-three per cent (119/276) of the studies included in the reviews took place in low- and middle-income countries. Collection of funds: the effects of changes in user fees on utilisation and equity are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether aid delivered under the Paris Principles (ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability) improves health outcomes compared to aid delivered without conforming to those principles (very low-certainty evidence). Insurance schemes: community-based health insurance may increase service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether social health insurance improves utilisation of health services or health outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Purchasing of services: it is uncertain whether increasing salaries of public sector healthcare workers improves the quantity or quality of their work (very low-certainty evidence). Recipient incentives: recipient incentives may improve adherence to long-term treatments (low-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether they improve patient outcomes. One-time recipient incentives probably improve patient return for start or continuation of treatment (moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve return for tuberculosis test readings (low-certainty evidence). However, incentives may not improve completion of tuberculosis prophylaxis, and it is uncertain whether they improve completion of treatment for active tuberculosis. Conditional cash transfer programmes probably lead to an increase in service utilisation (moderate-certainty evidence), but their effects on health outcomes are uncertain. Vouchers may improve health service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Introducing a restrictive cap may decrease use of medicines for symptomatic conditions and overall use of medicines, may decrease insurers' expenditures on medicines (low-certainty evidence), and has uncertain effects on emergency department use, hospitalisations, and use of outpatient care (very low-certainty evidence). Reference pricing, maximum pricing, and index pricing for drugs have mixed effects on drug expenditures by patients and insurers as well as the use of brand and generic drugs. Provider incentives: the effects of provider incentives are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence), including: the effects of provider incentives on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians or outpatient referrals from primary to secondary care, incentives for recruiting and retaining health professionals to serve in remote areas, and the effects of pay-for-performance on provider performance, the utilisation of services, patient outcomes, or resource use in low-income countries.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Research based on sound systematic review methods has evaluated numerous financial arrangements relevant to low-income countries, targeting different levels of the health systems and assessing diverse outcomes. However, included reviews rarely reported social outcomes, resource use, equity impacts, or undesirable effects. We also identified gaps in primary research because of uncertainty about applicability of the evidence to low-income countries. Financial arrangements for which the effects are uncertain include external funding (aid), caps and co-payments, pay-for-performance, and provider incentives. Further studies evaluating the effects of these arrangements are needed in low-income countries. Systematic reviews should include all outcomes that are relevant to decision-makers and to people affected by changes in financial arrangements.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
Motivation is a well-established predictor of recovery for addictive behaviors. Treatments aimed at changing substance use and gambling frequently employ motivational enhancing strategies, based in the principles of Motivational Interviewing (MI). Evidence for these approaches across addictive behaviors does not always paint a clear picture. The purpose of this review was to examine existing reviews of motivational-based interventions for various substances of abuse and gambling in the last decade to gain a deeper understanding of the current evidence and implications for future research and clinical practice. Literature searches were conducted to identify review articles from January 1, 2007 to January 30, 2017 for motivational enhancing interventions for alcohol, tobacco, drugs, marijuana, cocaine, opioids, methamphetamines, and gambling. Of the 144 articles assessed we included a total of 34 review articles in our review, including 6 Cochrane reviews. This review supports use of motivationally enhancing interventions across addictive behaviors with strongest evidence supporting use in alcohol and tobacco, with brief interventions showing strong efficacy. There is strong support for MI with marijuana and some support for gambling. Insufficient evidence is available for methamphetamine or opiate use. There are important caveats. In most cases, MI is more effective than no treatment and as effective (but not necessarily more effective) than other active treatments. Findings for effectiveness of more intensive motivational interventions or combinations are mixed. Treatment fidelity assessments, limited subpopulation analyses, and differences in dose, outcomes, and protocol specification continue to pose significant problems for reviews. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)
BACKGROUND: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.
There is growing interest in lifestyle interventions as stand-alone and add-on therapies in mental health care due to their potential benefits for both physical and mental health outcomes. We evaluated lifestyle interventions focusing on physical activity, diet, and sleep in adults with severe mental illness (SMI) and the evidence for their effectiveness. To this end, we conducted a meta-review and searched major electronic databases for articles published prior to 09/2022 and updated our search in 03/2024. We identified 89 relevant systematic reviews and assessed their quality using the SIGN checklist. Based on the findings of our meta-review and on clinical expertise of the authors, we formulated seven recommendations. In brief, evidence supports the application of lifestyle interventions that combine behavioural change techniques, dietary modification, and physical activity to reduce weight and improve cardiovascular health parameters in adults with SMI. Furthermore, physical activity should be used as an adjunct treatment to improve mental health in adults with SMI, including psychotic symptoms and cognition in adults with schizophrenia or depressive symptoms in adults with major depression. To ameliorate sleep quality, cognitive behavioural informed interventions can be considered. Additionally, we provide an overview of key gaps in the current literature. Future studies should integrate both mental and physical health outcomes to reflect the multi-faceted benefits of lifestyle interventions. Moreover, our meta-review highlighted a relative dearth of evidence relating to interventions in adults with bipolar disorder and to nutritional and sleep interventions. Future research could help establish lifestyle interventions as a core component of mental health care.
