The effectiveness and design of informed choice tools for people with severe mental illness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI) report difficulty in making health-related decisions. Informed choice tools are designed to guide individuals through a decision-making process. AIMS: To determine the effectiveness of these tools for people with SMI and to identify what methods and processes may contribute to effectiveness. METHOD: A systematic electronic search was conducted for studies published between 1996 and January 2018. The search was updated in March 2020. Studies of any design reporting the development or evaluation of any informed choice tool for people with SMI were considered. A structured, narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: Ten articles describing four tools were identified. Tools were designed to assist with decision-making around bipolar treatment, smoking cessation and disclosure of mental illness in employment situations. Positive changes in decisional conflict, stage of change, knowledge and self-efficacy were reported for two tools, though insufficient data exists for definitive conclusions of effectiveness. Feedback from service users and attention to readability appeared key. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for informed choice tools for people with SMI is limited. Such tools should be developed in stages and include the views of people with SMI at each phase; readability should be considered, and a theoretical framework should be used to facilitate process evaluation.

Barriers to effective diabetes management - a survey of people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illnesses (SMI) such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes and have poorer health outcomes than those with diabetes alone. To maintain good diabetes control, people with diabetes are advised to engage in several self-management behaviours. The aim of this study was to identify barriers or enablers of diabetes self-management experienced by people with SMI. METHODS: Adults with type 2 diabetes and SMI were recruited through UK National Health Service organisations and mental health and diabetes charities. Participants completed an anonymous survey consisting of: Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities (SDSCA); CORE-10 measure of psychological distress; a measure of barriers and enablers of diabetes self-management based on the Theoretical Domains Framework; Diabetes UK care survey on receipt of 14 essential aspects of diabetes healthcare. To identify the strongest explanatory variables of SDSCA outcomes, significant variables (p < .05) identified from univariate analyses were entered into multiple regressions. RESULTS: Most of the 77 participants had bipolar disorder (42%) or schizophrenia (36%). They received a mean of 7.6 (SD 3.0) diabetes healthcare essentials. Only 28.6% had developed a diabetes care plan with their health professional and only 40% reported receiving specialist psychological support. Engagement in self-management activities was variable. Participants reported taking medication on 6.1 (SD 2.0) days in the previous week but other behaviours were less frequent: general diet 4.1 (2.3) days; specific diet 3.6 (1.8) days, taking exercise 2.4 (2.1) days and checking feet on 1.7 (1.8) days. Smoking prevalence was 44%. Participants reported finding regular exercise and following a healthy diet particularly difficult. Factors associated with diabetes self-management included: the level of diabetes healthcare and support received; emotional wellbeing; priority given to diabetes; perceived ability to manage diabetes or establish a routine to do so; and perceived consequences of diabetes self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Several aspects of diabetes healthcare and self-management are suboptimal in people with SMI. There is a need to improve diabetes self-management support for this population by integrating diabetes action plans into care planning and providing adequate psychological support to help people with SMI manage their diabetes.

Interventions to increase access to or uptake of physical health screening in people with severe mental illness: a realist review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate interventions aimed at increasing uptake of, or access to, physical health screening by adults with severe mental illness; to examine why interventions might work. DESIGN: Realist review. SETTING: Primary, secondary and tertiary care. RESULTS: A systematic search identified 1448 studies, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were from Australia (n=3), Canada (n=1), Hong Kong (n=1), UK (n=11) and USA (n=6). The studies focused on breast cancer screening, infection preventive services and metabolic syndrome (MS) screening by targeting MS-related risk factors. The interventions could be divided into those focusing on (1) health service delivery changes (12 studies), using quality improvement, randomised controlled trial, cluster randomised feasibility trial, retrospective audit, cross-sectional study and satisfaction survey designs and (2) tests of tools designed to facilitate screening (10 studies) using consecutive case series, quality improvement, retrospective evaluation and pre-post audit study designs. All studies reported improved uptake of screening, or that patients had received screening they would not have had without the intervention. No estimation of overall effect size was possible due to heterogeneity in study design and quality. The following factors may contribute to intervention success: staff and stakeholder involvement in screening, staff flexibility when taking physical measurements (eg, using adapted equipment), strong links with primary care and having a pharmacist on the ward. CONCLUSIONS: A range of interventions may be effective, but better quality research is needed to determine any effect size. Researchers should consider how interventions may work when designing and testing them in order to target better the specific needs of this population in the most appropriate setting. Behaviour-change interventions to reduce identified barriers of patient and health professional resistance to screening this population are required. Resource constraints, clarity over professional roles and better coordination with primary care need to be addressed.

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with severe mental illness: an online cross-sectional survey of healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To establish healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views about clinical roles, and the barriers and enablers to delivery of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness (SMI). DESIGN: Cross-sectional, postal and online survey. SETTING: Trusts within the National Health Service, mental health and diabetes charities, and professional bodies. PARTICIPANTS: HCPs who care for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or SMI in the UK. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The barriers, enablers and experiences of delivering T2DM care for people with SMI, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: Respondents were 273 HCPs, primarily mental health nurses (33.7%) and psychiatrists (32.2%). Only 25% of respondents had received training in managing T2DM in people with SMI. Univariate analysis found that mental health professionals felt responsible for significantly fewer recommended diabetes care standards than physical health professionals (P<0.001). For those seeing diabetes care as part of their role, the significant barriers to its delivery in the multiple regression analyses were a lack of knowledge (P=0.003); a need for training in communication and negotiation skills (P=0.04); a lack of optimism about the health of their clients (P=0.04) and their ability to manage T2DM in people with SMI (P=0.003); the threat of being disciplined (P=0.02); fear of working with people with a mental health condition (P=0.01); a lack of service user engagement (P=0.006); and a need for incentives (P=0.04). The significant enablers were an understanding of the need to tailor treatments (P=0.04) and goals (P=0.02) for people with SMI. CONCLUSIONS: This survey indicates that despite current guidelines, diabetes care in mental health settings remains peripheral. Even when diabetes care is perceived as part of an HCP's role, various individual and organisational barriers to delivering recommended T2DM care standards to people with SMI are experienced.

Barriers and enablers of type 2 diabetes self-management in people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: People with diabetes and severe mental illness (SMI) experience poorer outcomes than those with diabetes alone. To improve outcomes, it is necessary to understand the difficulties that people with SMI experience in managing their diabetes. AIMS: To identify barriers and enablers to effective diabetes self-management experienced by people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. METHOD: Qualitative methodology using semi-structured interviews was employed. Development of the interview topic guide and analysis of the transcripts were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework for behaviour change, which consists of fourteen theoretical domains that have been found to influence behaviour. RESULTS: Fourteen people with SMI and type 2 diabetes took part in the study. Participants considered diabetes self-management to be important, were aware of the risks of poor diabetes control but struggled to follow recommended advice, particularly if their mental health was poor. Support from family and health professionals was considered an important enabler of diabetes self-management. CONCLUSIONS: New approaches are required to support diabetes self-management in people with SMI. This study identified some of the important domains that may be targeted in new interventions.

Implementation of recommended type 2 diabetes care for people with severe mental illness - a qualitative exploration with healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators healthcare professionals experience when managing type 2 diabetes in people with severe mental illness (SMI). METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview approach was employed. Questions were structured according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which outlines 14 domains that can act as barriers and facilitators to changing behaviour. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were coded according to the 14 domains of the TDF, belief statements were created within each domain and the most relevant belief statements within each domain identified through a consensus approach. Analyses were conducted by two researchers, and discrepancies agreed with a third researcher. RESULTS: Sixteen healthcare professionals, from a range of services, involved in the care of people with type 2 diabetes and SMI took part in an interview. Inter-rater reliability for each of the domains varied (25 %-74 %). All fourteen domains were deemed relevant, with 42 specific beliefs identified as important to the target behaviour. Participants identified having relevant knowledge and skills for diabetes management, prioritising this area of health, and reviewing health behaviours to develop action plans, as particularly important. At an organisational level, integrated care provision and shared information technology (IT) services between mental health and physical services, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the different professions, with designated time to undertake the work were identified as crucial. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight that healthcare professionals' experience a range of barriers and enablers when attempting to manage type 2 diabetes in people with SMI. These include organisational factors and individual beliefs, suggesting that interventions need to be targeted at both an organisation and individual level in order to change behaviour. Further work is needed to model these relationships in a larger sample of participants in line with the MRC guidance for developing complex interventions.