Cargando…

Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with ‘Complex Emotional Needs’ (CEN—our preferred working term for services for people with a “personality disorder” diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ledden, Sarah, Rains, Luke Sheridan, Schlief, Merle, Barnett, Phoebe, Ching, Brian Chi Fung, Hallam, Brendan, Günak, Mia Maria, Steare, Thomas, Parker, Jennie, Labovitch, Sarah, Oram, Sian, Pilling, Steve, Johnson, Sonia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442944/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36064337
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04171-z
_version_ 1784782936413831168
author Ledden, Sarah
Rains, Luke Sheridan
Schlief, Merle
Barnett, Phoebe
Ching, Brian Chi Fung
Hallam, Brendan
Günak, Mia Maria
Steare, Thomas
Parker, Jennie
Labovitch, Sarah
Oram, Sian
Pilling, Steve
Johnson, Sonia
author_facet Ledden, Sarah
Rains, Luke Sheridan
Schlief, Merle
Barnett, Phoebe
Ching, Brian Chi Fung
Hallam, Brendan
Günak, Mia Maria
Steare, Thomas
Parker, Jennie
Labovitch, Sarah
Oram, Sian
Pilling, Steve
Johnson, Sonia
author_sort Ledden, Sarah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with ‘Complex Emotional Needs’ (CEN—our preferred working term for services for people with a “personality disorder” diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020. RESULTS: We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people’s lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-04171-z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9442944
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94429442022-09-06 Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review Ledden, Sarah Rains, Luke Sheridan Schlief, Merle Barnett, Phoebe Ching, Brian Chi Fung Hallam, Brendan Günak, Mia Maria Steare, Thomas Parker, Jennie Labovitch, Sarah Oram, Sian Pilling, Steve Johnson, Sonia BMC Psychiatry Research BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with ‘Complex Emotional Needs’ (CEN—our preferred working term for services for people with a “personality disorder” diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN. The final search was conducted in November 2020. RESULTS: We included 226 papers in all (210 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps. Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people’s lives, peer support, or ways of designing effective services. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be helped when specialist therapies are available and when they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-04171-z. BioMed Central 2022-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9442944/ /pubmed/36064337 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04171-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Ledden, Sarah
Rains, Luke Sheridan
Schlief, Merle
Barnett, Phoebe
Ching, Brian Chi Fung
Hallam, Brendan
Günak, Mia Maria
Steare, Thomas
Parker, Jennie
Labovitch, Sarah
Oram, Sian
Pilling, Steve
Johnson, Sonia
Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
title Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
title_full Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
title_fullStr Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
title_short Current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
title_sort current state of the evidence on community treatments for people with complex emotional needs: a scoping review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9442944/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36064337
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04171-z
work_keys_str_mv AT leddensarah currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT rainslukesheridan currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT schliefmerle currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT barnettphoebe currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT chingbrianchifung currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT hallambrendan currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT gunakmiamaria currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT stearethomas currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT parkerjennie currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT labovitchsarah currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT oramsian currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT pillingsteve currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT johnsonsonia currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview
AT currentstateoftheevidenceoncommunitytreatmentsforpeoplewithcomplexemotionalneedsascopingreview