Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
BMC Psychiatry. 2022 Sep 5;22(1):589. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-04171-z.
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.
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.
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.
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.
提高社区环境中“复杂情感需求”人群(我们首选的服务对象是“人格障碍”诊断或类似需求的人群)的护理质量,已被国际公认为一项优先事项。改善护理的计划应尽可能基于证据。我们旨在通过对旨在为 CEN 人群提供的基于社区的心理社会干预措施的结果进行的已发表调查进行范围界定审查,来评估当前此类证据的状况,并确定重大差距。
我们进行了一项范围界定审查,进行了系统搜索。我们在六个文献数据库中进行了搜索,包括向前和向后引用搜索以及相关系统评价的参考文献搜索。我们纳入了使用定量方法测试 CEN 人群的基于社区的干预措施对任何临床、社会和功能结果的影响的研究。最后一次搜索于 2020 年 11 月进行。
我们总共纳入了 226 篇论文(210 项研究)。2000 年之前很少有相关文献发表。自那时以来,每年发表的论文数量和样本量逐渐增加,但大多数研究规模较小,包括许多试点或未对照的研究。大多数研究都集中在各种形式的专业心理治疗对症状和自残结果的影响上:大多数结果都优于非活性对照,并且与其他专业心理治疗相似。我们发现了很大的证据差距。为具有重大意义的人群(例如,患有共病精神病、双相情感障碍、创伤后应激障碍或物质使用障碍、年龄较大和较小的人群、父母)改编和测试疗法已在很大程度上仅达到可行性测试阶段。我们几乎没有关于改善人们生活的社会方面、同伴支持或设计有效服务的干预措施的证据。
与其他严重影响功能的长期心理健康问题相比,关于如何为 CEN 人群提供高质量护理的证据基础非常有限。有充分的证据表明,当提供专业治疗并且人们能够参与治疗时,CEN 人群可以得到帮助。但是,迫切需要更具方法学严谨性和更实质性的文献来解决更广泛的研究问题,以优化该人群的治疗和支持。