Amy Ronaldson1,2, Lotte Elton1, Simone Jayakumar1, Anna Jieman1, Kristoffer Halvorsrud1, Kamaldeep Bhui1,3. 1. Centre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric comorbidity is known to impact upon use of nonpsychiatric health services. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the specific impact of severe mental illness (SMI) on the use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services for nonpsychiatric medical disorders. METHODS AND FINDINGS: PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies up to October 2018. An updated search was carried out up to the end of February 2020. Studies were included if they assessed the impact of SMI on nonpsychiatric inpatient, emergency, and primary care service use in adults. Study designs eligible for review included observational cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analyses of the effect of SMI on inpatient admissions, length of hospital stay, 30-day hospital readmission rates, and emergency department use were performed. This review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019119516). Seventy-four studies were eligible for review. All were observational cohort or case-control studies carried out in high-income countries. Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 10,777,210. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The majority of studies (n = 45) were deemed to be of good quality. Narrative analysis showed that SMI led to increases in use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services. Meta-analyses revealed that patients with SMI were more likely to be admitted as nonpsychiatric inpatients (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-2.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 100%), had hospital stays that were increased by 0.59 days (pooled standardised mean difference = 0.59 days, 95% CI 0.36-0.83, p < 0.001, I2 = 100%), were more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 30 days (pooled OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.28-1.47, p < 0.001, I2 = 83%), and were more likely to attend the emergency department (pooled OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.41-2.76, p < 0.001, I2 = 99%) compared to patients without SMI. Study limitations include considerable heterogeneity across studies, meaning that results of meta-analyses should be interpreted with caution, and the fact that it was not always possible to determine whether service use outcomes definitively excluded mental health treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that SMI impacts significantly upon the use of nonpsychiatric health services. Illustrating and quantifying this helps to build a case for and guide the delivery of system-wide integration of mental and physical health services.
BACKGROUND:Psychiatric comorbidity is known to impact upon use of nonpsychiatric health services. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the specific impact of severe mental illness (SMI) on the use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services for nonpsychiatric medical disorders. METHODS AND FINDINGS: PubMed, Web of Science, PsychINFO, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies up to October 2018. An updated search was carried out up to the end of February 2020. Studies were included if they assessed the impact of SMI on nonpsychiatric inpatient, emergency, and primary care service use in adults. Study designs eligible for review included observational cohort and case-control studies and randomised controlled trials. Random-effects meta-analyses of the effect of SMI on inpatient admissions, length of hospital stay, 30-day hospital readmission rates, and emergency department use were performed. This review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019119516). Seventy-four studies were eligible for review. All were observational cohort or case-control studies carried out in high-income countries. Sample sizes ranged from 27 to 10,777,210. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The majority of studies (n = 45) were deemed to be of good quality. Narrative analysis showed that SMI led to increases in use of inpatient, emergency, and primary care services. Meta-analyses revealed that patients with SMI were more likely to be admitted as nonpsychiatric inpatients (pooled odds ratio [OR] = 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-2.80, p = 0.005, I2 = 100%), had hospital stays that were increased by 0.59 days (pooled standardised mean difference = 0.59 days, 95% CI 0.36-0.83, p < 0.001, I2 = 100%), were more likely to be readmitted to hospital within 30 days (pooled OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.28-1.47, p < 0.001, I2 = 83%), and were more likely to attend the emergency department (pooled OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.41-2.76, p < 0.001, I2 = 99%) compared to patients without SMI. Study limitations include considerable heterogeneity across studies, meaning that results of meta-analyses should be interpreted with caution, and the fact that it was not always possible to determine whether service use outcomes definitively excluded mental health treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that SMI impacts significantly upon the use of nonpsychiatric health services. Illustrating and quantifying this helps to build a case for and guide the delivery of system-wide integration of mental and physical health services.
Authors: Cherrie A Galletly; Debra L Foley; Anna Waterreus; Gerald F Watts; David J Castle; John J McGrath; Andrew Mackinnon; Vera A Morgan Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Lydia A Chwastiak; Dimitry S Davydow; Christine L McKibbin; Ellen Schur; Mason Burley; Michael G McDonell; John Roll; Kenn B Daratha Journal: Psychosomatics Date: 2013-12-22 Impact factor: 2.386
Authors: Maximus Berger; Ann Katrin Kraeuter; Daria Romanik; Peter Malouf; G Paul Amminger; Zoltán Sarnyai Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Brendan J Clark; Angela Keniston; Ivor S Douglas; Thomas Beresford; Madison Macht; Andre Williams; Jacqueline Jones; Ellen L Burnham; Marc Moss Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2013-05-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Ivan Olier; David A Springate; Darren M Ashcroft; Tim Doran; David Reeves; Claire Planner; Siobhan Reilly; Evangelos Kontopantelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Naomi Launders; Kate Dotsikas; Louise Marston; Gabriele Price; David P J Osborn; Joseph F Hayes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Helen Newton; Susan H Busch; Mary F Brunette; Donovan T Maust; A James O'Malley; Ellen Meara Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Alain K Koyama; Emilia H Koumans; Kanta Sircar; Amy M Lavery; Jean Y Ko; Joy Hsu; Kayla N Anderson; David A Siegel Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 16.126
Authors: Silvana Galderisi; Marc De Hert; Stefano Del Prato; Andrea Fagiolini; Philip Gorwood; Stefan Leucht; Aldo Pietro Maggioni; Armida Mucci; Celso Arango Journal: Eur Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 5.361
Authors: Maarten van Schijndel; Luc Jansen; Jan Busschbach; Jeroen van Waarde; Andre Wierdsma; Henning Tiemeier Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 2.655