Abstract
Background Improving the quality of care in community settings for people with ‘Complex Emotional Needs’ (CEN - our preferred working term for services for people with a “personality disorder” diagnosis or comparable needs) is recognised internationally as a priority. Plans to improve care should be rooted as far as possible in evidence. We aimed to take stock of the current state of such evidence, and identify significant gaps through a scoping review of published investigations of outcomes of community-based psychosocial interventions designed for CEN.
Methods We conducted a scoping review with systematic searches. We searched six bibliographic databases, including forward and backward citation searching, and reference searching of relevant systematic reviews. We included studies using quantitative methods to test for effects on any clinical, social, and functioning outcomes from community-based interventions for people with CEN.
Results We included 226 papers in all (209 studies). Little relevant literature was published before 2000. Since then, publications per year and sample sizes have gradually increased, but most studies are relatively small, including many pilot or uncontrolled studies. Most studies focus on symptom and self-harm outcomes of various forms of specialist psychotherapy: most result in outcomes better than from inactive controls and similar to other specialist psychotherapies. We found large evidence gaps.
Adaptation and testing of therapies for significant groups (e.g. people with comorbid psychosis, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder or substance misuse; older and younger groups; parents) have for the most part only reached a feasibility testing stage. We found little evidence regarding interventions to improve social aspects of people’s lives, peer support or ways of designing effective services.
Conclusions Compared with other longer term mental health problems that significantly impair functioning, the evidence base on how to provide high quality care for people with CEN is very limited. There is good evidence that people with CEN can be effectively helped when specialist therapies are available and they are able to engage with them. However, a much more methodologically robust and substantial literature addressing a much wider range of research questions is urgently needed to optimise treatment and support across this group.
Competing Interest Statement
SJ and SO are grant holders for the NIHR Mental Health Policy Research Unit.
Funding Statement
This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health (grant no. PR-PRU-0916-22003). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm's 591 length bodies, or other government departments. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding statement This paper presents independent research commissioned and funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme, conducted by the NIHR Policy Research Unit (PRU) in Mental Health (grant no. PR-PRU-0916-22003). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or its arm’s 591 length bodies, or other government departments. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
↵* SL, LSR and MS are joint first authors
↵** List of group members: Alexandra Papamichail10, Ava Mason1, Avithaa Thayaparan1, Baihan Wang1, Christian Dalton Locke2, Jasmine Harju-Seppänen1, Jiping Mo1, Magdalena Tomaskova1, Natasha Lyons2, Spyros Spyridonidis1, Tiffeny James1, Zainab Dedat2, Zoë Haime1
Author affiliations and supplemental files updated.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript (see appendices).
