Suppr超能文献

系统评价和荟萃分析团体同伴支持干预对心理健康状况人群的影响。

A systematic review and meta-analysis of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions.

机构信息

Division of Psychiatry, University College London, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK.

Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.

出版信息

BMC Psychiatry. 2021 Jun 23;21(1):315. doi: 10.1186/s12888-021-03321-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Peer support is being integrated within mental health services to further the development of a recovery approach. However, the most effective models and formats of intervention delivery are unknown. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of peer support for improving outcomes for people with lived experience of mental health conditions, when delivered as group interventions.

METHODS

Studies reporting randomised controlled trials of group peer support interventions for people experiencing mental health conditions were identified by searching MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL, from inception until July 12th 2019 and undertaking supplementary searches. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias and meta-analyses were conducted if three or more trials provided usable data.

RESULTS

Eight trials met eligibility criteria, providing data from 2131 participants. Six trials had either high or unclear risk of bias. Interventions were categorised as mutual support groups, or peer support groups, sub-categorised as anti-stigma or self-management interventions. Meta-analyses were only possible for peer support groups and five outcomes. We found evidence that group peer support may make small improvements to overall recovery but not hope or empowerment individually, or to clinical symptoms. Evidence for effectiveness for outcomes which could not be meta-analysed was mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the few eligible trials suggest group peer support interventions may be specifically effective for supporting personal recovery and have a limited impact on other outcomes, though there were some risks of bias to study findings. Interventions were heterogeneous and most social outcomes were absent in the literature, highlighting further limitations to the current evidence-base. There is insufficient evidence available from trials of group peer support torecommend the routine implementation of these interventions across mainstream mental health services at present. More high-quality trials of peer-developed, group peer support interventions are needed in order tomake firm conclusions about intervention effectiveness.

摘要

背景

同伴支持正在被整合到精神卫生服务中,以进一步发展康复方法。然而,最有效的干预模式和形式尚不清楚。我们进行了这项系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定同伴支持对改善有精神健康状况的人的结果的有效性,当作为团体干预措施提供时。

方法

通过搜索 MEDLINE、PsycINFO、Embase 和 Cochrane CENTRAL,从成立到 2019 年 7 月 12 日,我们确定了报告团体同伴支持干预措施对经历精神健康状况的人的随机对照试验的研究,并进行了补充搜索。纳入的研究评估了偏倚风险,如果有三个或更多试验提供了可用数据,则进行荟萃分析。

结果

八项试验符合入选标准,提供了 2131 名参与者的数据。六项试验存在高或不清楚的偏倚风险。干预措施被归类为互助小组或同伴支持小组,进一步细分为抗污名或自我管理干预措施。仅对同伴支持小组和五个结果进行了荟萃分析。我们发现证据表明,团体同伴支持可能会对整体康复产生微小的改善,但不会对希望或赋权产生个体影响,也不会对临床症状产生影响。对于无法进行荟萃分析的结果,证据好坏参半。

结论

从少数合格试验中得出的结果表明,团体同伴支持干预措施可能特别有效地支持个人康复,对其他结果的影响有限,尽管研究结果存在一些偏倚风险。干预措施存在异质性,文献中大多数社会结果缺失,这突出了当前证据基础的进一步局限性。目前,团体同伴支持试验提供的证据不足以推荐这些干预措施在主流精神卫生服务中常规实施。需要更多由同伴开发的、团体同伴支持干预措施的高质量试验,以便对干预效果做出明确结论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ec29/8220835/03990ad412d3/12888_2021_3321_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验