Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction. RESULTS: We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive. CONCLUSION: Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.

Discharge planning, self-management, and community support: Strategies to avoid psychiatric rehospitalisation from a service user perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric rehospitalisation is often seen as a negative outcome in terms of healthcare quality and cost, as well as potentially hindering the process of recovery. The purpose of our study was to explore psychiatric rehospitalisation from a service-user perspective, paying attention to how rehospitalisation can be avoided. METHOD: Eight focus groups, including a total of 55 mental health service users, were conducted in six European countries (Austria, Finland, Italy, Norway, Romania, and Slovenia). The results were analysed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: All participants had been in touch with mental health services for at least one year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. Participants emphasised the importance of discharge planning and psychoeducation both during and after the hospital stay, as well as the benefits of structured plans, coping strategies, self-monitoring techniques, and close contact with local community services.Social contacts and meaningful activities were also considered to be critical, as was support from peers and family members. CONCLUSION: Efforts to avoid psychiatric rehospitalisation should include actions that support a functional day-to-day life, improve coping strategies, and build on cross-sectoral collaboration. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The study emphasises the need for psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions, starting already during the inpatient stay.

The balance of adult mental health care: provision of core health versus other types of care in eight European countries.

AIMS: Although many mental health care systems provide care interventions that are not related to direct health care, little is known about the interfaces between the latter and core health care. 'Core health care' refers to services whose explicit aim is direct clinical treatment which is usually provided by health professionals, i.e., physicians, nurses, psychologists. 'Other care' is typically provided by other staff and includes accommodation, training, promotion of independence, employment support and social skills. In such a definition, 'other care' does not necessarily mean being funded or governed differently. The aims of the study were: (1) using a standard classification system (Description and Evaluation of Services and Directories in Europe for Long Term Care, DESDE-LTC) to identify 'core health' and 'other care' services provided to adults with mental health problems; and (2) to investigate the balance of care by analysing the types and characteristics of core health and other care services. METHODS: The study was conducted in eight selected local areas in eight European countries with different mental health systems. All publicly funded mental health services, regardless of the funding agency, for people over 18 years old were identified and coded. The availability, capacity and the workforce of the local mental health services were described using their functional main activity or 'Main Types of Care' (MTC) as the standard for international comparison, following the DESDE-LTC system. RESULTS: In these European study areas, 822 MTCs were identified as providing core health care and 448 provided other types of care. Even though one-third of mental health services in the selected study areas provided interventions that were coded as 'other care', significant variation was found in the typology and characteristics of these services across the eight study areas. CONCLUSIONS: The functional distinction between core health and other care overcomes the traditional division between 'health' and 'social' sectors based on governance and funding. The overall balance between core health and other care services varied significantly across the European sites. Mental health systems cannot be understood or planned without taking into account the availability and capacity of all services specifically available for this target population, including those outside the health sector.

Mental health service users' experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation - an explorative focus group study in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric re-hospitalisation is considered costly and disruptive to individuals. The perspective of the mental health service user is largely unexplored in literature. The purpose of our study was to explore service users' experiences of psychiatric re-hospitalisation across six countries in Europe. METHOD: Eight focus groups were conducted in Romania, Slovenia, Finland, Italy, Austria and Norway. RESULTS: A total of 55 service users participated in the study. All participants had been in receipt of mental health services for at least 1 year, and had experienced more than one psychiatric hospitalisation. The experience of re-hospitalisation was considered: (1) less traumatising than the first hospitalisation, (2) to be necessary, and a relief, (3) occurring by default and without progress, (4) part of the recovery process. CONCLUSIONS: Psychiatric re-hospitalisation was considered inevitable by the study participants, in both positive and negative terms. Striking similarities in service user experiences were found across all of the six countries, the first experience of psychiatric hospitalisation emerging as especially significant. Findings indicate the need for further action in order to develop more recovery and person-centred approaches within hospital care. For psychiatric inpatient care to be a positive part of the recovery process, further knowledge on what therapeutic action during the hospital stay would be beneficial, such as therapy, activities and integration with other services.

Overview of post-discharge predictors for psychiatric re-hospitalisations: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: High levels of hospital readmission (rehospitalisation rates) is widely used as indicator of a poor quality of care. This is sometimes also referred to as recidivism or heavy utilization. Previous studies have examined a number of factors likely to influence readmission, although a systematic review of research on post-discharge factors and readmissions has not been conducted so far. The main objective of this review was to identify frequently reported post-discharge factors and their effects on readmission rates. METHODS: Studies on the association between post-discharge variables and readmission after an index discharge with a main psychiatric diagnosis were searched in the bibliographic databases Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, ProQuest Health Management, OpenGrey and Google Scholar. Relevant articles published between January 1990 and June 2014 were included. A systematic approach was used to extract and organize in categories the information about post-discharge factors associated with readmission rates. RESULTS: Of the 760 articles identified by the initial search, 80 were selected for this review which included a total number of 59 different predictors of psychiatric readmission. Subsequently these were grouped into four categories: 1) individual vulnerability factors, 2) aftercare related factors, 3) community care and service responsiveness, and 4) contextual factors and social support. Individual factors were addressed in 58 papers and were found to be significant in 37 of these, aftercare factors were significant in 30 out of the 45 papers, community care and social support factors were significant in 21 out of 31 papers addressing these while contextual factors and social support were significant in all seven papers which studied them. CONCLUSIONS: This review represents a first attempt at providing an overview of post-discharge factors previously studied in association with readmission. Hence, by mapping out the current research in the area, it highlights the gaps in research and it provides guidance future studies in the area.