Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The adverse effects of loneliness and of poor perceived social support on physical health and mortality are established, but no systematic synthesis is available of their relationship with the outcomes of mental health problems over time. In this systematic review, we aim to examine the evidence on whether loneliness and closely related concepts predict poor outcomes among adults with mental health problems. Methods We searched six databases and reference lists for longitudinal quantitative studies that examined the relationship between baseline measures of loneliness and poor perceived social support and outcomes at follow up. Thirty-four eligible papers were retrieved. Due to heterogeneity among included studies in clinical populations, predictor measures and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Results We found substantial evidence from prospective studies that people with depression who perceive their social support as poorer have worse outcomes in terms of symptoms, recovery and social functioning. Loneliness has been investigated much less than perceived social support, but there is some evidence that greater loneliness predicts poorer depression outcome. There is also some preliminary evidence of associations between perceived social support and outcomes in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and anxiety disorders. Conclusions Loneliness and quality of social support in depression are potential targets for development and testing of interventions, while for other conditions further evidence is needed regarding relationships with outcomes.

Background There is a large treatment gap for common mental disorders (CMD), with wide variation by world region. This review identifies factors associated with formal health service utilisation for CMD in the general adult population, and compares evidence from high-income countries (HIC) with that from low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). Methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE and Scopus in May 2016. Eligibility criteria were: published in English, in peer-reviewed journals; using population-based samples; employing standardised CMD measures; measuring use of formal health services for mental health reasons by people with CMD; testing the association between this outcome and any other factor(s). Risk of bias was assessed using the adapted Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised the results using “best fit framework synthesis”, with reference to the Andersen socio-behavioural model. Results Fifty two studies met inclusion criteria. 46 (88%) were from HIC. Predisposing factors: There was evidence linking increased likelihood of service use with female gender; Caucasian ethnicity; higher education levels; and being unmarried; although this was not consistent across all studies. Need factors: There was consistent evidence of an association between service utilisation and self-evaluated health status; duration of symptoms; disability; comorbidity; and panic symptoms. Associations with symptom severity were frequently but less consistently reported. Enabling factors: The evidence did not support an association with income or rural residence. Inconsistent evidence was found for associations between unemployment or having health insurance and use of services. There was a lack of research from LMIC and on contextual level factors. Conclusion In HIC, failure to seek treatment for CMD is associated with less disabling symptoms and lack of perceived need for healthcare, consistent with suggestions that “treatment gap” statistics over-estimate unmet need for care as perceived by the target population. Economic factors and urban/rural residence appear to have little effect on treatment-seeking rates. Strategies to address potential healthcare inequities for men, ethnic minorities, the young and the elderly in HIC require further evaluation. The generalisability of these findings beyond HIC is limited. Future research should examine factors associated with health service utilisation for CMD in LMIC, and the effect of health systems and neighbourhood factors. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: 42016046551 .

Background There is increasing recognition of the therapeutic function pets can play in relation to mental health. However, there has been no systematic review of the evidence related to the comprehensive role of companion animals and how pets might contribute to the work associated with managing a long-term mental health condition. The aim of this study was to explore the extent, nature and quality of the evidence implicating the role and utility of pet ownership for people living with a mental health condition. Methods A systematic search for studies exploring the role of companion animals in the management of mental health conditions was undertaken by searching 9 databases and undertaking a scoping review of grey literature from the earliest record until March 2017. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to be published in English and report on primary data related to the relationship between domestic animal ownership and the management of diagnosable mental health conditions. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data was undertaken in parallel using a narrative synthesis informed by an illness work theoretical framework. Results A total of 17 studies were included in the review. Quantitative evidence relating to the benefits of pet ownership was mixed with included studies demonstrating positive, negative and neutral impacts of pet ownership. Qualitative studies illuminated the intensiveness of connectivity people with companion animals reported, and the multi-faceted ways in which pets contributed to the work associated with managing a mental health condition, particularly in times of crisis. The negative aspects of pet ownership were also highlighted, including the practical and emotional burden of pet ownership and the psychological impact that losing a pet has. Conclusion This review suggests that pets provide benefits to those with mental health conditions. Further research is required to test the nature and extent of this relationship, incorporating outcomes that cover the range of roles and types of support pets confer in relation to mental health and the means by which these can be incorporated into the mainstay of support for people experiencing a mental health problem.

Background Peer support is being introduced into mental health services internationally, often in response to workforce policy. Earlier systematic reviews incorporate different modalities of peer support (i.e. group and one-to-one), offer inconsistent evidence of effectiveness, and also indicate substantial heterogeneity and issues of quality in the evidence base at that time. An updated review, focussed on one-to-one peer support, is timely given current policy interest. This study aims to systematically review evidence for the effectiveness of one-to-one peer support interventions for adults using mental health services, and to explore heterogeneity in peer support interventions. Method We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases from inception until 13 June 2019. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias, and meta-analyses conducted where multiple trials provided usable data. Results Twenty-three studies reporting nineteen trials were eligible, providing data from 3329 participants. While seven trials were of low to moderate risk of bias, incomplete reporting of data in many studies suggested bias in the evidence base. Peer support interventions included peer workers in paraclinical roles (e.g. case manager), providing structured behavioural interventions, or more flexible support for recovery. Meta-analyses were conducted for eleven outcomes, with evidence that one-to-one peer support may have a modest positive impact on self-reported recovery and empowerment. There was no impact on clinical symptoms or service use. Analyses of heterogeneity suggest that peer support might improve social network support. Conclusions One-to-one peer support in mental health services might impact positively on psychosocial outcomes, but is unlikely to improve clinical outcomes. In order to better inform the introduction of peer support into mental health services, improvement of the evidence base requires complete reporting of outcome data, selection of outcomes that relate to intervention mechanisms, exploration of heterogeneity in the implementation of peer support and focused reviews of specific types of one-to-one peer support. Trial registration Prospero identifier: CRD42015025621 .

Background Little is known about the public stigma on mental illness and mental health knowledge (MHK) in China, public stigma and low MHK can negatively affect patients’ health and increase the burden of mental disorders on society. This study aimed at investigating the rates of stigma and MHK, the correlates of stigma and MHK, and the association between MHK and stigma among a Chinese population. Methods The data is from the Tianjin Mental Health Survey (TJMHS), which involved a large and a representative sample of adult community residents in the Chinese municipality of Tianjin ( n  = 11,748). In a 12% random subsample ( n  = 1775) the Perceived Discrimination and Devaluation scale (PDD) and a Mental Health Knowledge Questionnaire (MHKQ) were administered. First, percentages of the responses to the individual items of the PDD and MHKQ were investigated. Second, sociodemographic correlates of PDD and MHK, and the association between stigma and MHK were investigated. Results We found that a sizable proportion of participants responded that others would hold a negative attitude towards (former) mental patients, especially with regard to engaging in closer personal relationships. Most people were not familiar about the causes, treatments and prevention of mental illness. Resident area, age, education level, Per capita family income and employment status were related to devaluation score and MHKQ score. MHK was negatively associated with public stigma. Conclusions There is room for improvement with regard to levels of public stigma and MHK in China. Providing psychoeducation to improve public MHK could also contribute to reduction of public stigma.

Background Although cultural factors play a crucial role in experience of stigma, there is scant review on the impact and importance of culture on stigma of mental illness across Pacific Rim Region. This study aims to investigate: 1) the cultural factors related to stigmatizing beliefs about mental illness in Pacific Rim region, and 2) culture-specific measures and interventions on stigma of mental illness. Methods A systematic search of papers was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google scholar through January 2003 to April 2019. Results Forty-one studies in Pacific Rim region which met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The rate of stigma of mental illness (e.g., public stigma: from 25.4 to 85.2%) was relatively high in Pacific Rim region. Culture factors (e.g., Collectivism, Confucianism, face concern and familism, religion and supernatural beliefs) contributed to people’s stigmatizing behaviors and attitudes toward persons with mental illness, their relatives and mental health professionals. Certain measurements were developed and employed to assess different type of cultural factors related to stigma of mental illness. Conclusions Cultural factors play an important role in influencing the rate and performance of stigma of mental illness. Further research on stigma of mental illness and culture-specific interventions to reduce the stigma should be conducted in the Pacific Rim region.

Background Young people have a higher prevalence of loneliness than other age groups, and they are also at risk of depression. Quantitative studies describe a bidirectional association between loneliness and depression, but there is limited understanding of how these influence each other. Little is known about the experience of loneliness among young people with depression. Qualitative approaches may help understand the relationship between loneliness and depression among young people, and how to intervene to improve outcomes. We aimed to conduct a meta-synthesis to understand the complex inter-relationship between loneliness and depression among young depressed people by synthesising evidence from a systematic review of qualitative studies. Methods We conducted a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies capturing experiences of loneliness among young people with depression. We systematically searched six electronic databases for selected search terms, critically appraised eligible studies, and analysed the data from included studies using the approach of thematic synthesis. We used feedback from an inter-disciplinary research workshop to improve reflexivity. Results Our inclusion criteria identified fourteen studies. Our analysis identified four themes: (1) social withdrawal due to poor mental health, (2) non-disclosure of depression contributing to social distance, (3) the desire to connect, and (4) paradoxes of loneliness and depression. These themes illustrated a range of pathways between depression and loneliness, and a sense of how these might be mutually reinforcing. Our findings suggest that where depressed individuals engage in certain behaviours (withdrawing; not confiding) for a range of reasons, this can lead to feelings of loneliness, an awareness of which worsens their mood, thus perpetuating their depression. Conclusions Young people with depression experience loneliness as an insurmountable distance between themselves and others. Our findings identified non-disclosure of depression, and the debilitating nature of the depressive symptomatology, as factors perpetuating a vicious cycle of loneliness and depression. They suggest that approaches to tackling the problem might include helping young people communicate about their depression to trusted friends and educating their social networks in how to support them. The wider research literature suggests that cognitive interventions may have a role in shifting maladaptive cognitions about their social world.

Background A pandemic is a very stressful event, especially for highly vulnerable people (e.g., older adults). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the main and interactive relationships of social support and resilience on individual mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic across three age groups: emerging adults, adults, and older adults. Methods A survey was conducted with 23,192 participants aged 18–85. Respondents completed a questionnaire, including items on the COVID-19-related support they perceived from different sources, the abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and the Mental Health Inventory. Results Latent profile analysis identified five profiles of social support, and the patterns of potential profiles were similar in all groups. However, category distribution in the five profiles was significantly different among the age groups. Furthermore, analysis using the BCH command showed significant differences in mental health among these profiles. Lastly, interactive analyses indicated resilience had a positive relationship with mental health, and social support served as a buffer against the negative impact of low resilience on mental health. Conclusions This study provides quantitative evidence for socioemotional selectivity theory (SST) and enables several practical implications for helping different age groups protecting mental health during pandemic.

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.

Background Although positive psychology interventions (PPIs) show beneficial effects on mental health in non-clinical populations, the current literature is inconclusive regarding its effectiveness in clinical settings. We aimed to examine the effects of PPIs on well-being (primary outcome), depression, anxiety, and stress (secondary outcomes) in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus were searched for controlled studies of PPIs in clinical samples between Jan 1, 1998 and May 31, 2017. Methodological quality of each study was rated. We used Hedges’ adjusted g to calculate effect sizes and pooled results using random-effect models. Results Thirty studies were included, representing 1864 patients with clinical disorders. At post-intervention, PPIs showed significant, small effect sizes for well-being (Hedges’ g  = 0.24) and depression ( g  = 0.23) compared to control conditions when omitting outliers. Significant moderate improvements were observed for anxiety ( g  = 0.36). Effect sizes for stress were not significant. Follow-up effects (8–12 weeks), when available, yielded similar effect sizes. Quality of the studies was low to moderate. Conclusion These findings indicate that PPIs, wherein the focus is on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors, not only have the potential to improve well-being, but can also reduce distress in populations with clinical disorders. Given the growing interest for PPIs in clinical settings, more high quality research is warranted as to determine the effectiveness of PPIs in clinical samples. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42016037451