The association between social class and the impact of treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to synthesise all quantitative literature on the association between social class and the effectiveness of interventions for mental health disorders. METHODS: Systematic literature searches (inception-March 2021) were conducted across 7 databases, and all quantitative studies meeting inclusion criteria, examining the impact of social class on access to treatment, or intervention effectiveness, or the impact of treatment on social mobility, were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Evidence suggests that lower social class may be associated with reduced access to primary and secondary mental health care and increased likelihood of access via crisis services, and patients of lower social class may not benefit from all mental health interventions, with reduced effectiveness. While limited, there was some indication that psychosocial interventions could encourage increased employment rates. CONCLUSION: Social class is associated with the effectiveness of psychological interventions, and should be considered when designing new interventions to prevent barriers to access and improve effectiveness.

Life events and treatment prognosis for depression: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate associations between major life events and prognosis independent of treatment type: (1) after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors and socio-demographics; (2) amongst patients with depressive episodes at least six-months long; and (3) patients with a first life-time depressive episode. METHODS: Six RCTs of adults seeking treatment for depression in primary care met eligibility criteria, individual patient data (IPD) were collated from all six (n = 2858). Participants were randomized to any treatment and completed the same baseline assessment of life events, demographics and clinical prognostic factors. Two-stage random effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Reporting any major life events was associated with poorer prognosis regardless of treatment type. Controlling for baseline clinical factors, socio-demographics and social support resulted in minimal residual evidence of associations between life events and treatment prognosis. However, removing factors that might mediate the relationships between life events and outcomes reporting: arguments/disputes, problem debt, violent crime, losing one's job, and three or more life events were associated with considerably worse prognoses (percentage difference in 3-4 months depressive symptoms compared to no reported life events =30.3%(95%CI: 18.4-43.3)). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing for clinical prognostic factors, social support, and socio-demographics is likely to be more informative for prognosis than assessing self-reported recent major life events. However, clinicians might find it useful to ask about such events, and if they are still affecting the patient, consider interventions to tackle problems related to those events (e.g. employment support, mediation, or debt advice). Further investigations of the efficacy of such interventions will be important.