Rachel Ruddy1, Allan House. 1. Academic Unit of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9LT, UK. R.A.Ruddy@leeds.ac.leeds.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When planning and delivering a liaison psychiatry service it is important to have an understanding of the research evidence supporting the use of interventions likely to be delivered by the service. AIMS: To identify high-quality systematic reviews for all interventions in three defined areas of liaison psychiatry, to summarise their clinical implications and to highlight areas where more research is needed. The three areas were the psychological effects of physical illness or treatment, somatoform disorders and self-harming behaviour. METHOD: Computerised database searching, secondary reference searching, hand-searching and expert consultation were used to identify relevant systematic reviews. Studies were reliably selected, and quality-assessed, and data were extracted and interpreted by two reviewers. RESULTS: We found 64 high-quality systematic reviews. Only 14 reviews included meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Many areas of liaison psychiatry practice are not based on high-quality evidence. More research in this area would help inform development and planning of liaison psychiatry services.
BACKGROUND: When planning and delivering a liaison psychiatry service it is important to have an understanding of the research evidence supporting the use of interventions likely to be delivered by the service. AIMS: To identify high-quality systematic reviews for all interventions in three defined areas of liaison psychiatry, to summarise their clinical implications and to highlight areas where more research is needed. The three areas were the psychological effects of physical illness or treatment, somatoform disorders and self-harming behaviour. METHOD: Computerised database searching, secondary reference searching, hand-searching and expert consultation were used to identify relevant systematic reviews. Studies were reliably selected, and quality-assessed, and data were extracted and interpreted by two reviewers. RESULTS: We found 64 high-quality systematic reviews. Only 14 reviews included meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Many areas of liaison psychiatry practice are not based on high-quality evidence. More research in this area would help inform development and planning of liaison psychiatry services.
Authors: E B Mukaetova-Ladinska; G Cosker; M Coppock; M Henderson; Y Ali Ashgar; A Hill; A Scully; D Robinson; K Sells; S Brotherton; C Lowthian Journal: Nurs Res Pract Date: 2011-07-11
Authors: Chris Smith; Jenny Hewison; Robert M West; Elspeth Guthrie; Peter Trigwell; Mike J Crawford; Carolyn J Czoski Murray; Matt Fossey; Claire Hulme; Sandy Tubeuf; Allan House Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 2.692