Several interventions have been developed to support families living with parental mental illness (PMI). Recent evidence suggests that programmes with whole-family components may have greater positive effects for families, thereby also reducing costs to health and social care systems. This review aimed to identify whole-family interventions, their common characteristics, effectiveness and acceptability. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A literature search was conducted in ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO in January 2021 and updated in August 2022. We double screened 3914 abstracts and 212 papers according to pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality assessment. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and synthesised. Randomised-control trial data on child and parent mental health outcomes were analysed separately in random-effects meta-analyses. The protocol, extracted data, and meta-data are accessible via the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9uxgp/). Data from 66 reports—based on 41 independent studies and referring to 30 different interventions—were included. Findings indicated small intervention effects for all outcomes including children’s and parents’ mental health (dc = −0.017, −027; dp = −0.14, −0.16) and family outcomes. Qualitative evidence suggested that most families experienced whole-family interventions as positive, highlighting specific components as helpful, including whole-family components, speaking about mental illness, and the benefits of group settings. Our findings highlight the lack of high-quality studies. The present review fills an important gap in the literature by summarising the evidence for whole-family interventions. There is a lack of robust evidence coupled with a great need in families affected by PMI which could be addressed by whole-family interventions. We recommend the involvement of families in the further development of these interventions and their evaluation.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Background: Lifestyle interventions for severe mental illness (SMI) are known to have small to modest efect 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 efects 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 efcacy 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 identifed 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 signifcant efect on quality of life (g=0.13; 95% CI=−0.02 to 0.27), with high heterogeneity (I2 =68.7%). We found a small efect on depression severity (g=0.30, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.58, I2 =65.2%) and a moderate efect on anxiety severity (g=0.56, 95% CI=0.16 to 0.95, I2 =0%). Discussion: This meta-analysis quantifes the efects of lifestyle interventions on PROs. Lifestyle interventions have no signifcant efect 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.
Abstract Background Smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and efectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verifed by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical ftness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efcacy at 12months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals. Discussion The results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of efective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.
