Quality of life outcomes of web-based and in-person weight management for adults with serious mental illness

Investigating 'treat culture' in a secure care service: a study of inpatient NHS staff on their views and opinions on weight gain and treat giving for patients in a forensic secure care service

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a significant health inequality within forensic secure care mental health/learning disability inpatient settings. Patients may be at increased risk of developing preventable long-term conditions/premature death. This study investigated staff views on patient weight gain, how it affects patients and how to better manage patient weight in this setting. Furthermore, the research explored the culture of food being used as a 'treat' and the perceived impact of 'treats' on weight.

METHODS

A two-phase mixed methods approach was taken to explore staff views on patient weight gain and the 'treat' culture on adult forensic secure care inpatient wards in one NHS Mental Health Trust in the north-east of England. Phase one was an online survey, and phase two consisted of semi-structured qualitative interviews. The quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was used for the open-ended survey questions and interview data.

RESULTS

The survey had 49 responses out of a possible 380 (13%). Ninety-two per cent of staff participants viewed patient weight gain as an area for concern, citing a range of reasons for weight gain. Weight gain was considered a risk to developing long-term health conditions and poor mental health. Nine participants were interviewed. Six themes were identified suggesting why patients might gain weight in forensic secure care, for example, patient history, staff behaviours, the surrounding 'treat' culture in this environment, along with suggestions of what could be improved to manage patient weight.

CONCLUSIONS

People detained in forensic secure care may be more at risk of weight gain due to their history, the secure care environment and the 'treat' culture adopted in these environments.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map

Background

Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions.

Objectives

The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care.

Search Methods

We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies.

Selection Criteria

Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations.

Main Results

We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration.

Authors' Conclusions

Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Food insecurity and severe mental illness: understanding the hidden problem and how to ask about food access during routine healthcare

Food insecurity occurs when an individual lacks the financial resources to ensure reliable access to sufficient food to meet their dietary, nutritional and social needs. Adults living with mental ill health, particularly severe mental illness, are more likely to experience food insecurity than the general adult population. Despite this, most interventions and policy reforms in recent years have been aimed at children and families, with little regard for other vulnerable groups. Initiating a conversation about access to food can be tricky and assessing for food insecurity does not happen in mental health settings. This article provides an overview of food insecurity and how it relates to mental ill health. With reference to research evidence, the reader will gain an understanding of food insecurity, how it can be assessed and how food-insecure individuals with severe mental illness can be supported. Finally, we make policy recommendations to truly address this driver of health inequality.

Patient-reported outcomes of lifestyle interventions in patients with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lifestyle interventions for severe mental illness (SMI) are known to have small to modest effect on physical health outcomes. Little attention has been given to patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

AIM

To systematically review the use of PROs and their measures, and quantify the effects of lifestyle interventions in patients with SMI on these PROs.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from inception until 12 November 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42020212135). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of lifestyle interventions focusing on healthy diet, physical activity, or both for patients with SMI were included. Outcomes of interest were PROs.

RESULTS

A total of 11.267 unique records were identified from the database search, 66 full-text articles were assessed, and 36 RCTs were included, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analyses. In total, 5.907 participants were included across studies. Lifestyle interventions had no significant effect on quality of life (g = 0.13; 95% CI = - 0.02 to 0.27), with high heterogeneity (I² = 68.7%). We found a small effect on depression severity (g = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.00 to 0.58, I² = 65.2%) and a moderate effect on anxiety severity (g = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.95, I² = 0%).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis quantifies the effects of lifestyle interventions on PROs. Lifestyle interventions have no significant effect on quality of life, yet they could improve mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety symptoms. Further use of patient-reported outcome measures in lifestyle research is recommended to fully capture the impact of lifestyle interventions.