Exploring the use of social network interventions for adults with mental health difficulties: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Implementation
Mental health
Patient and public involvement
Social networks
Systematic review
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 07 2023
07 07 2023
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
accepted:
17
05
2023
medline:
10
7
2023
pubmed:
8
7
2023
entrez:
7
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
People with mental health difficulties often experience social isolation. The importance of interventions to enhance social networks and reduce this isolation is increasingly being recognised. However, the literature has not yet been systematically reviewed with regards to how these are best used. This narrative synthesis aimed to investigate the role of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties and identify barriers and facilitators to effective delivery. This was undertaken with a view to understanding how social network interventions might work best in the mental health field. Systematic searches using combinations of synonyms for mental health difficulties and social network interventions were undertaken across 7 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) and 2 grey literature databases (EThoS and OpenGrey) from their inception to October 2021. We included studies reporting primary qualitative and quantitative data from all study types relating to the use of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively. The review included 54 studies, reporting data from 6,249 participants. Social network interventions were generally beneficial for people with mental health difficulties but heterogeneity in intervention type, implementation and evaluation made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Interventions worked best when they (1) were personalised to individual needs, interests and health, (2) were delivered outside formal health services and (3) provided the opportunity to engage in authentic valued activities. Several barriers to access were identified which, without careful consideration could exacerbate existing health inequalities. Further research is required to fully understand condition-specific barriers which may limit access to, and efficacy of, interventions. Strategies for improving social networks for people with mental health difficulties should focus on supporting engagement with personalised and supported social activities outside of formal mental health services. To optimise access and uptake, accessibility barriers should be carefully considered within implementation contexts and equality, diversity and inclusion should be prioritised in intervention design, delivery and evaluation and in future research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
People with mental health difficulties often experience social isolation. The importance of interventions to enhance social networks and reduce this isolation is increasingly being recognised. However, the literature has not yet been systematically reviewed with regards to how these are best used. This narrative synthesis aimed to investigate the role of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties and identify barriers and facilitators to effective delivery. This was undertaken with a view to understanding how social network interventions might work best in the mental health field.
METHODS
Systematic searches using combinations of synonyms for mental health difficulties and social network interventions were undertaken across 7 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science) and 2 grey literature databases (EThoS and OpenGrey) from their inception to October 2021. We included studies reporting primary qualitative and quantitative data from all study types relating to the use of social network interventions for people with mental health difficulties. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were extracted and synthesised narratively.
RESULTS
The review included 54 studies, reporting data from 6,249 participants. Social network interventions were generally beneficial for people with mental health difficulties but heterogeneity in intervention type, implementation and evaluation made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Interventions worked best when they (1) were personalised to individual needs, interests and health, (2) were delivered outside formal health services and (3) provided the opportunity to engage in authentic valued activities. Several barriers to access were identified which, without careful consideration could exacerbate existing health inequalities. Further research is required to fully understand condition-specific barriers which may limit access to, and efficacy of, interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
Strategies for improving social networks for people with mental health difficulties should focus on supporting engagement with personalised and supported social activities outside of formal mental health services. To optimise access and uptake, accessibility barriers should be carefully considered within implementation contexts and equality, diversity and inclusion should be prioritised in intervention design, delivery and evaluation and in future research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37420228
doi: 10.1186/s12888-023-04881-y
pii: 10.1186/s12888-023-04881-y
pmc: PMC10329398
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
486Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : Number PB-PG-0418-20011
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Child Abuse Negl. 2013 Aug;37(8):544-54
pubmed: 23623623
J Ment Health. 2019 Jun;28(3):331-339
pubmed: 29750586
Perspect Public Health. 2011 Mar;131(2):71-81
pubmed: 21462750
Health Soc Care Community. 2022 Nov;30(6):e4144-e4154
pubmed: 35470919
Community Ment Health J. 2021 Jan;57(1):189-195
pubmed: 32399601
Health Place. 2009 Jun;15(2):520-531
pubmed: 19062326
Am J Community Psychol. 2013 Sep;52(1-2):84-96
pubmed: 23689965
Can J Occup Ther. 2021 Jun;88(2):142-152
pubmed: 33761777
J Affect Disord. 2016 Apr;194:188-95
pubmed: 26828756
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;5(1):41-50
pubmed: 29242000
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2019 Sep;87(9):787-801
pubmed: 31403815
World Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;13(2):153-60
pubmed: 24890068
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 02;9(4):e91936
pubmed: 24694747
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1545-1602
pubmed: 27733282
Chronic Illn. 2015 Mar;11(1):3-20
pubmed: 24807919
Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2001 Winter;24(3):293-8
pubmed: 11315215
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003 Apr;38(4):180-8
pubmed: 12664228
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008 Jul;118(1):64-72
pubmed: 18595176
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Community Ment Health J. 1998 Dec;34(6):579-93
pubmed: 9833199
Br J Psychiatry. 2018 May;212(5):308-317
pubmed: 28982657
BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Nov 01;13:279
pubmed: 24180273
J Ment Health. 2020 Feb;29(1):6-11
pubmed: 28282996
Perspect Public Health. 2013 Jan;133(1):28-35
pubmed: 23034832
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
Implement Sci. 2011 Oct 26;6:120
pubmed: 22029930
Scand J Occup Ther. 2019 Jan;26(1):55-68
pubmed: 29179630
Glob Public Health. 2019 Dec;14(12):1718-1732
pubmed: 31094290
J Eval Clin Pract. 2018 Jun;24(3):459-467
pubmed: 29464873
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Sep;197(3):227-33
pubmed: 20807969
Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018 May;19(3):232-245
pubmed: 29215328
Health Soc Care Community. 2019 Sep;27(5):e588-e603
pubmed: 31231928
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):23-33
pubmed: 19378696
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2015 May;61(3):241-50
pubmed: 25001267
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2016;86(3):345-54
pubmed: 26913774
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Jul 10;8:45
pubmed: 18616818
BMC Psychiatry. 2020 Feb 7;20(1):50
pubmed: 32028906
J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29 Suppl 3:6-9; discussion 37-8
pubmed: 12787202
Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1991 Nov;42(11):1125-31
pubmed: 1743640
BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Nov 21;15:297
pubmed: 26590161
BMJ. 2022 Mar 15;376:o672
pubmed: 35292433
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Sep;51(6):843-57
pubmed: 10972429
J Public Health (Oxf). 2015 Mar;37(1):143-50
pubmed: 24839293
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2018 Jun;64(4):326-334
pubmed: 29536792
Psychiatr Serv. 2007 Jun;58(6):802-9
pubmed: 17535940
Br J Psychiatry. 1998 Nov;173:404-8
pubmed: 9926057
J Eat Disord. 2020 Jul 01;8:29
pubmed: 32626579
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Apr;208(4):381-8
pubmed: 26494875
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Jan;46(2):275-86
pubmed: 9447648
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59723
pubmed: 23565162
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(18):1575-84
pubmed: 22303816
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015 Jun;8(2):134-8
pubmed: 25862485
Health Expect. 2020 Jun;23(3):681-690
pubmed: 32162435
Br J Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;188:37-45
pubmed: 16388068
J Urban Health. 2001 Sep;78(3):458-67
pubmed: 11564849
Chronic Illn. 2021 Sep;17(3):173-188
pubmed: 31053038
Front Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 08;9:247
pubmed: 29937739
Community Ment Health J. 1995 Aug;31(4):335-49
pubmed: 7587154
Can J Psychiatry. 2013 Nov;58(11):622-31
pubmed: 24246433
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2022 Aug;68(5):1071-1077
pubmed: 34015979
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 1998 Winter;44(4):248-66
pubmed: 10459509
Lancet. 2018 Aug 4;392(10145):409-418
pubmed: 30102174
Psychiatr Serv. 2012 Mar;63(3):216-22
pubmed: 22388528
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;54(2):221-233
pubmed: 30267112
J Adv Nurs. 1998 Apr;27(4):713-20
pubmed: 9578200
Schizophr Res. 2016 May;173(1-2):79-83
pubmed: 27017490
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Jun 7;18(1):179
pubmed: 29879925
BMC Psychol. 2022 Mar 16;10(1):71
pubmed: 35296361
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006 Oct;41(10):761-70
pubmed: 16900304
J Res Nurs. 2018 Sep;23(6):476-489
pubmed: 34394462
BMC Health Serv Res. 2022 Sep 9;22(1):1140
pubmed: 36085063
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 19;11(1):141
pubmed: 27756414
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Jan 6;20(1):19
pubmed: 31906933
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2022 May;57(5):907-925
pubmed: 35138427