28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
7 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of community interventions for protecting and promoting the mental health of working-age adults experiencing financial uncertainty: a systematic review

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The COVID-19 pandemic has created a period of global economic uncertainty. Financial strain, personal debt, recent job loss and housing insecurity are important risk factors for the mental health of working-age adults. Community interventions have the potential to attenuate the mental health impact of these stressors. We examined the effectiveness of community interventions for protecting and promoting the mental health of working-age adults in high-income countries during periods of financial insecurity.

          Methods

          Eight electronic databases were systematically screened for experimental and observational studies published since 2000 measuring the effectiveness of community interventions on mental health outcomes. We included any non-clinical intervention that aimed to address the financial, employment, food or housing insecurity of participants. A review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42019156364) and results are reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

          Results

          From 2326 studies screened, 15 met our inclusion criteria. Five categories of community intervention were identified: advice services colocated in healthcare settings; link worker social prescribing; telephone debt advice; food insecurity interventions; and active labour market programmes. In general, the evidence for effective and cost-effective community interventions delivered to individuals experiencing financial insecurity was lacking. From the small number of studies without a high risk of bias, there was some evidence that financial insecurity and associated mental health problems were amenable to change and differences by subpopulations were observed.

          Conclusion

          There is a need for well-controlled studies and trials to better understand effective ingredients and to identify those interventions warranting wider implementation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references90

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

            Summary The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a profound effect on all aspects of society, including mental health and physical health. We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research. These priorities were informed by surveys of the public and an expert panel convened by the UK Academy of Medical Sciences and the mental health research charity, MQ: Transforming Mental Health, in the first weeks of the pandemic in the UK in March, 2020. We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time. The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative. International collaboration and a global perspective will be beneficial. An immediate priority is collecting high-quality data on the mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic across the whole population and vulnerable groups, and on brain function, cognition, and mental health of patients with COVID-19. There is an urgent need for research to address how mental health consequences for vulnerable groups can be mitigated under pandemic conditions, and on the impact of repeated media consumption and health messaging around COVID-19. Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required. Rising to this challenge will require integration across disciplines and sectors, and should be done together with people with lived experience. New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure. This Position Paper provides a strategy that may be both adapted for, and integrated with, research efforts in other countries.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

              Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Epidemiol Community Health
                J Epidemiol Community Health
                jech
                jech
                Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                0143-005X
                1470-2738
                July 2021
                30 April 2021
                30 April 2021
                : 75
                : 7
                : 665-673
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDivision of Psychiatry , University College London , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Health Services Research and Policy , London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine , London, UK
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Sport and Exercise Sciences , Durham University , Durham, UK
                [4 ] departmentDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health , Imperial College London , London, UK
                [5 ] departmentDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health , University College London , London, UK
                [6 ] departmentInstitute of Health and Society , Newcastle University , Newcastle, UK
                [7 ] departmentCambridge Public Health , University of Cambridge , Cambridge, UK
                [8 ] Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership , Cambridge, UK
                [9 ] Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Jennifer Dykxhoorn, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London W1T 7NF, UK; j.dykxhoorn@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0465-176X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4929-5685
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5023-5201
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6254-8707
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4643-3701
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6246-9590
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7169-9344
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3401-0824
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9018-1217
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5730-4350
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2519-1539
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2173-2430
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6391-8626
                Article
                jech-2020-215574
                10.1136/jech-2020-215574
                8223661
                33931550
                e53a826a-d801-411a-b439-22c322b7e403
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 12 September 2020
                : 01 March 2021
                : 23 March 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: BH154142
                Categories
                Review
                1506
                2474
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Public health
                inequalities,mental health,psychosocial factors,public health,systematic reviews
                Public health
                inequalities, mental health, psychosocial factors, public health, systematic reviews

                Comments

                Comment on this article