Integrated Care to Address the Physical Health Needs of People with Severe Mental Illness : A Mapping Review of the Recent Evidence on Barriers, Facilitators and Evaluations

People with mental health conditions have a lower life expectancy and poorer physical health outcomes than the general population. Evidence suggests this is due to a combination of clinical risk factors, socioeconomic factors, and health system factors, notably a lack of integration when care is required across service settings. Several recent reports have looked at ways to better integrate physical and mental health care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). We built on these by conducting a mapping review that looked for the most recent evidence and service models in this area. This involved searching the published literature and speaking to people involved in providing or using current services. Few of the identified service models were described adequately and fewer still were evaluated, raising questions about the replicability and generalisability of much of the existing evidence. However, some common themes did emerge. Efforts to improve the physical health care of people with SMI should empower staff and service users and help remove everyday barriers to delivering and accessing integrated care. In particular, there is a need for improved communication among professionals and better information technology to support them, greater clarity about who is responsible and accountable for physical health care, and greater awareness of the effects of stigmatisation on the wider culture and environment in which services are delivered

Integrated care to address the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness : a rapid review

Background People with mental health conditions have a lower life expectancy and poorer physical health outcomes than the general population. Evidence suggests that this discrepancy is driven by a combination of clinical risk factors, socioeconomic factors and health system factors. Objective(s) To explore current service provision and map the recent evidence on models of integrated care addressing the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness (SMI) primarily within the mental health service setting. The research was designed as a rapid review of published evidence from 2013–15, including an update of a comprehensive 2013 review, together with further grey literature and insights from an expert advisory group. Synthesis We conducted a narrative synthesis, using a guiding framework based on nine previously identified factors considered to be facilitators of good integrated care for people with mental health problems, supplemented by additional issues emerging from the evidence. Descriptive data were used to identify existing models, perceived facilitators and barriers to their implementation, and any areas for further research. Findings and discussion The synthesis incorporated 45 publications describing 36 separate approaches to integrated care, along with further information from the advisory group. Most service models were multicomponent programmes incorporating two or more of the nine factors: (1) information sharing systems; (2) shared protocols; (3) joint funding/commissioning; (4) colocated services; (5) multidisciplinary teams; (6) liaison services; (7) navigators; (8) research; and (9) reduction of stigma. Few of the identified examples were described in detail and fewer still were evaluated, raising questions about the replicability and generalisability of much of the existing evidence. However, some common themes did emerge from the evidence. Efforts to improve the physical health care of people with SMI should empower people (staff and service users) and help remove everyday barriers to delivering and accessing integrated care. In particular, there is a need for improved communication between professionals and better information technology to support them, greater clarity about who is responsible and accountable for physical health care, and awareness of the effects of stigmatisation on the wider culture and environment in which services are delivered. Limitations and future work The literature identified in the rapid review was limited in volume and often lacked the depth of description necessary to acquire new insights. All members of our advisory group were based in England, so this report has limited information on the NHS contexts specific to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A conventional systematic review of this topic would not appear to be appropriate in the immediate future, although a more interpretivist approach to exploring this literature might be feasible. Wherever possible, future evaluations should involve service users and be clear about which outcomes, facilitators and barriers are likely to be context-specific and which might be generalisable

Co-production practice and future research priorities in United Kingdom-funded applied health research: a scoping review

Abstract Background Interest in and use of co-production in healthcare services and research is growing. Previous reviews have summarized co-production approaches in use, collated outcomes and effects of co-production, and focused on replicability and reporting, but none have critically reflected on how co-production in applied health research might be evolving and the implications of this for future research. We conducted this scoping review to systematically map recent literature on co-production in applied health research in the United Kingdom to inform co-production practice and guide future methodological research. Methods This scoping review was performed using established methods. We created an evidence map to show the extent and nature of the literature on co-production and applied health research, based on which we described the characteristics of the articles and scope of the literature and summarized conceptualizations of co-production and how it was implemented. We extracted implications for co-production practice or future research and conducted a content analysis of this information to identify lessons for the practice of co-production and themes for future methodological research. Results Nineteen articles reporting co-produced complex interventions and 64 reporting co-production in applied health research met the inclusion criteria. Lessons for the practice of co-production and requirements for co-production to become more embedded in organizational structures included (1) the capacity to implement co-produced interventions, (2) the skill set needed for co-production, (3) multiple levels of engagement and negotiation, and (4) funding and institutional arrangements for meaningful co-production. Themes for future research on co-production included (1) who to involve in co-production and how, (2) evaluating outcomes of co-production, (3) the language and practice of co-production, (4) documenting costs and challenges, and (5) vital components or best practice for co-production. Conclusion Researchers are operationalizing co-production in various ways, often without the necessary financial and organizational support required and the right conditions for success. We argue for accepting the diversity in approaches to co-production, call on researchers to be clearer in their reporting of these approaches, and make suggestions for what researchers should record. To support co-production of research, changes to entrenched academic and scientific practices are needed. Protocol registration details: The protocol for the scoping review was registered with protocols.io on 19 October 2021: https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.by7epzje