RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of international guidance for the community treatment of complex emotional needs: A systematic review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.02.14.22270639
DO 10.1101/2022.02.14.22270639
A1 Zhan Yuen, Nicholas Wong
A1 Barnett, Phoebe
A1 Rains, Luke Sheridan
A1 Johnson, Sonia
A1 Billings, Jo
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/02/15/2022.02.14.22270639.abstract
AB Background Guidelines for the treatment and management of “personality disorder” were introduced to provide guidance on best practice from evidence and views of key stakeholders. However, this guidance varies as there is yet to be an overall, internationally recognised consensus on the best mental health care for people with complex emotional needs (CEN - our preferred working term for the needs of people using services for or related to “personality disorder”).Aims We aimed to identify and synthesise recommendations made by different mental health organisations from across the world on community treatment for people with CEN.Methods This systematic review consisted of three stages: 1. systematic literature and guideline search, 2. quality appraisal, and 3. data synthesis. We combined a search strategy involving both systematic searching of bibliographic databases and supplementary search methods of grey literature. Key informants were also contacted to further identify relevant guidelines. Codebook thematic analysis was then conducted. The quality of all included guidelines was assessed and considered alongside results.Results After synthesising 29 guidelines from 11 countries and 1 international organisation, we identified four main domains, with a total of 27 themes. Important key principles on which there was consensus included continuity of care, equity of access, accessibility of services, availability of specialist care, taking a whole systems approach, trauma informed approaches, and collaborative care planning and decision making.Conclusions Existing international guidelines shared consensus on a set of principles for the community treatment of CEN. However, half of the guidelines were of lower methodological quality, with many recommendations not backed by evidence.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe authors received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data is already available in the public domain.