Alan J. Flisher Centre for Public Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Rondebosch, Western Cape, South Africa
Division of Occupational Therapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences, Observatory, Western Cape, South Africa.
BMJ Open. 2021 Mar 24;11(3):e045005. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045005.
To examine the literature on how recovery of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is conceptualised in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), and in particular what factors are thought to facilitate recovery.
Scoping review.
We searched 14 electronic databases, hand searched citations and consulted with experts during the period May-December 2019. Eligible studies were independently screened for inclusion and exclusion by two reviewers. Unresolved discrepancies were referred to a third reviewer.
All bibliographical data and study characteristics were extracted using a data charting form. Selected studies were analysed through a thematic analysis emerging from extracted data.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram offers a summary of the results: 4201 titles, 1530 abstracts and 109 full-text articles were screened. Ten articles were selected for inclusion: two from Turkey, two from India, and one each from China, Swaziland, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. Although most studies used qualitative methods, data collection and sampling methods were heterogeneous. One study reported on service provider perspectives while the rest provided perspectives from a combination of service users and caregivers. Three themes emerged from the data analysis. First, studies frame recovery as a personal journey occurring along a continuum. Second, there was an emphasis on social relationships as a facilitator of recovery. Third, spirituality emerged as both a facilitator and an indicator of recovery. These themes were not mutually exclusive and some overlap exists.
Although there were commonalities with how high-income countries describe recovery, we also found differences in conceptualisation. These differences in how recovery was understood reflect the importance of framing the personal recovery concept in relation to local needs and contextual issues found in LMICs. This review highlighted the current sparse evidence base and the need to better understand recovery from SMI in LMICs.
考察中低收入国家(LMICs)严重精神疾病(SMI)患者康复的文献,特别是哪些因素被认为有助于康复。
范围综述。
我们在 2019 年 5 月至 12 月期间搜索了 14 个电子数据库,对手头的参考文献进行了检索,并咨询了专家。两名评审员独立筛选纳入和排除标准。未解决的差异提交给第三名评审员。
使用数据图表表格提取所有书目数据和研究特征。通过从提取的数据中出现的主题分析来分析选定的研究。
系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目流程图提供了结果的总结:4201 个标题,1530 个摘要和 109 篇全文文章进行了筛选。选择了 10 篇文章进行纳入:两篇来自土耳其,两篇来自印度,一篇来自中国、斯威士兰、印度尼西亚、埃及、南非和越南。尽管大多数研究使用了定性方法,但数据收集和抽样方法存在差异。一项研究报告了服务提供者的观点,而其余研究则提供了服务使用者和照顾者的组合观点。数据分析得出了三个主题。首先,研究将康复定义为沿着连续体发生的个人旅程。其次,强调社会关系是康复的促进因素。第三,精神性既作为康复的促进因素,也作为康复的指标出现。这些主题并非相互排斥,有些主题存在重叠。
尽管高收入国家对康复的描述存在共性,但我们也发现了概念上的差异。对康复的理解存在差异,这反映了在 LMICs 中,将个人康复概念与当地需求和背景问题联系起来的重要性。本综述强调了目前证据基础薄弱的问题,并需要更好地理解 LMICs 中的 SMI 康复。