Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer treatment in people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

People with severe mental illness (SMI) have a greater risk of dying from colorectal cancer (CRC), even though the incidence is lower or similar to that of the general population This pattern is unlikely to be solely explained by lifestyle factors, while the role of differences in cancer healthcare access or treatment is uncertain.

Methods

We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis on access to guideline-appropriate care following CRC diagnosis in people with SMI including the receipt of surgery, chemo- or radiotherapy. We searched for full-text articles indexed by PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo and CINAHL that compared CRC treatment in those with and without pre-existing SMI (schizophrenia, schizoaffective, bipolar and major affective disorders). Designs included cohort or population-based case-control designs.

Results

There were ten studies (sample size = 3501-591 561). People with SMI had a reduced likelihood of surgery (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.92-0.97; p = 0.005; k = 4). Meta-analyses were not possible for the other outcomes but in results from individual studies, people with SMI were less likely to receive radiotherapy, chemotherapy or sphincter-sparing procedures. The disparity in care was greatest for those who had been psychiatric inpatients.

Conclusions

People with SMI, including both psychotic and affective disorders, receive less CRC care than the general population. This might contribute to higher case-fatality rates for an illness where the incidence is no higher than that of the general population. The reasons for this require further investigation, as does the extent to which differences in treatment access or quality contribute to excess CRC mortality in people with SMI.

SUBMITTER: Protani MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9706308 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Colorectal cancer treatment in people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Protani Melinda M MM Alotiby Meshary Khaled N MKN Seth Rebecca R Lawrence David D Jordan Susan J SJ Logan Hayley H Kendall Bradley J BJ Siskind Dan D Sara Grant G Kisely Steve S

Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences 20221117

<h4>Aims</h4>People with severe mental illness (SMI) have a greater risk of dying from colorectal cancer (CRC), even though the incidence is lower or similar to that of the general population This pattern is unlikely to be solely explained by lifestyle factors, while the role of differences in cancer healthcare access or treatment is uncertain.<h4>Methods</h4>We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis on access to guideline-appropriate care following CRC diagnosis in people with SMI incl ...[more]

PMID: 36384819

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:An advance directive is a document specifying a person's preferences for treatment, should he or she lose capacity to make such decisions in the future. They have been used in end-of-life settings to direct care but should be well suited to the mental health setting. OBJECTIVES:To examine the effects of advance treatment directives for people with severe mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (February 2008), the Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2008), BIOSIS (1985 to February 2008), CINAHL (1982 to February 2008), EMBASE (1980 to February 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2008), PsycINFO (1872 to February 2008), as well as SCISEARCH and Google - Internet search engine (February 2008). We inspected relevant references and contacted first authors of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), involving adults with severe mental illness, comparing any form of advance directive with standard care for health service and clinical outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We extracted data independently. For homogenous dichotomous data we calculated fixed-effect relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence interval again using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS:We were able to include two trials involving 321 people with severe mental illnesses. There was no significant difference in hospital admission (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 0.5 to 1.0), or number of psychiatric outpatient attendances between participants given advanced treatment directives or usual care. Similarly, no significant differences were found for compliance with treatment, self harm or number of arrests. Participants given advanced treatment directives needed less use of social workers time (n=160, 1 RCT, WMD -106.00 CI -156.2 to -55.8) than the usual care group, and violent acts were also lower in the advanced directives group (n=160, 1 RCT, RR 0.27 CI 0.1 to 0.9, NNT 8 CI 6 to 92). The number of people leaving the study early were not different between groups (n=321, 2 RCTs, RR 0.92 CI 0.6 to 1.6). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There are too few data available to make definitive recommendations. More intensive forms of advance directive appear to show promise, but currently practice must be guided by evidence other than that derived from randomised trials. More trials are indicated to determine whether higher intensity interventions, such as joint crisis planning, have an effect on outcomes of clinical relevance.

Project description:Aims1) To determine the pooled prevalence of overweight and obesity in people with severe mental illness (SMI), overall and by type of SMI, geographical region, and year of data collection; and 2) to assess the likelihood of overweight and obesity, in people with SMI compared with the general population.MethodsPubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify observational studies assessing the prevalence of obesity in adults with SMI. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two co-authors. Random effect estimates for the pooled prevalence of overweight and obesity and the pooled odds of obesity in people with SMI compared with the general population were calculated. Subgroup analyses were conducted for types of SMI, setting, antipsychotic medication, region of the world, country income classification, date of data collection and sex. We assessed publication bias and performed a series of sensitivity analyses, excluding studies with high risk of bias, with low sample size and those not reporting obesity according to WHO classification.Result120 studies from 43 countries were included, the majority were from high income countries. The pooled prevalence of obesity in people with SMI was 25.9% (95% C.I. = 23.3-29.1) and the combined pooled prevalence of overweight and obesity was 60.1% (95% C.I. = 55.8-63.1). Sub-Saharan Africa (13.0%, 95%C.I. = 6.7-25.1) and South Asia (17.7%, 95%C.I. = 10.5-28.5) had the lowest prevalence of obesity whilst North Africa and the Middle East (35.8%, 95%C.I. = 23.8-44.8) reported the highest prevalence. People with SMI were 3.04 more likely (95% C.I. = 2.42-3.82) to have obesity than the general population, but there was no difference in the prevalence of overweight. Women with schizophrenia were 1.44 (95% C.I. = 1.25-1.67) times more likely than men with schizophrenia to live with obesity; however, no gender differences were found among those with bipolar disorder.ConclusionPeople with SMI have a markedly high prevalence and higher odds of obesity than the general population. This may contribute to the very high prevalence of physical health conditions and mortality in this group. People with SMI around the world would likely benefit from interventions to reduce and prevent obesity.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness.MethodA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described.ResultsEighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support.ConclusionsDespite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions.

Project description:Interventions: We are assessing the impact of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) by comparing participation rates of people with and without Severe Mental Illness (SMI) and looking at health outcomes. We will be using data collected from Aug 2006 - latest available. We are linking data using Commonwealth data (NBCSP, Medicare Benefits Schedule, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Cancer Database & the National Death Index) to compare bowel cancer screening participation in people with SMI to those from the general population. We will additionally link these to the NSW cancer registry and hospital data to examine care pathways from diagnosis through treatment and end-of-life care. We will also conduct a consultation with people with experience of SMI and Colorectal cancer and people with SMI in peer support roles who can provide their perspective on the barriers faced by people with SMI to gaining timely screening, diagnosis and optimal care. These participants will be recruited from New South Wales consumer organisations and organisations with a strong focus on provision of peer support and advocacy. We will use a semi structured group interview schedule to facilitate discussion of a single focus group of 15 people. The group will consist of both people with lived experience who have direct experience of bowel cancer (n=10), as well as other people with lived experience who have supported people in this situation – as peer support workers or in other consumer advocacy/support roles (n=5). We will use this qualitative arm of the study to further develop our understanding of the quantitative findings. The consultation will also develop ideas on how to improve access to care. Primary outcome(s): Participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program assessed using data from the NBCSP.[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006) (the date of commencement of the NBCSP) or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later.. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and were recorded in the administrative data. This will be assessed when we receive the data.];Colonoscopy rates assessed using data from the NBCSP [Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until colonoscopy. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.];Cancer diagnosis using data from the Australian Cancer Database[Person-years will be calculated from entry into the study (2006 the date of commencement of the NBCSP), or from the year that people become eligible for screening (i.e. age 50), whichever occurs later, until cancer diagnosis. This is a retrospective cohort study, so all of the outcomes have already occurred and have been recorded in the administrative data.] Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Longitudinal;Selection: Case control;Timing: Both

Dataset Information

Colorectal cancer treatment in people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Colorectal cancer treatment in people with severe mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets