scholarly journals Connecting healthcare with income maximisation services, and their financial, health and well-being impacts for families with young children: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e056297
Author(s):  
Jade Burley ◽  
Anna MH Price ◽  
Anneka Parker ◽  
Nora Samir ◽  
Anna Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Service ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Financial Hardship ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health And Well Being

IntroductionPoverty has far-reaching and detrimental effects on children’s physical and mental health, across all geographies. Financial advice and income-maximisation services can provide a promising opportunity for shifting the physical and mental health burdens that commonly occur with financial hardship, yet awareness of these services is limited, and referrals are not systematically integrated into existing healthcare service platforms. We aim to map and synthesise evidence on the impact of healthcare-income maximisation models of care for families of children aged 0–5 years in high-income countries on family finances, parent/caregiver(s) or children’s health and well-being.Methods and analysisTo be included in the review, studies must be families (expectant mothers or parents/caregivers) of children who are aged between 0 and 5 years, accessing a healthcare service, include a referral from healthcare to an income-maximisation service (ie, financial counselling), and examine impacts on child and family health and well-being. A comprehensive electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies written in English, published from inception to January 2021, and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest, Family & Society Studies Worldwide, Cochrane Library, and Informit Online. Search strategies will include terms for: families, financial hardship and healthcare, in various combinations. Bibliographies of primary studies and review articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be searched manually to identify further eligible studies, and grey literature will also be searched. Data on objective and self-reported outcomes and study quality will be independently extracted by two review authors; any disagreements will be resolved through a third reviewer. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated widely via peer-reviewed publication and presentations at conferences related to this field.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020195985.

scholarly journals Gamification in Apps and Technologies for Improving Mental Health and Well-Being: Systematic Review

10.2196/13717 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. e13717 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Wan Sze Cheng ◽  
Tracey Davenport ◽  
Daniel Johnson ◽  
Kellie Vella ◽  
Ian B Hickie
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Behavior Change ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Current Application ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Health And Well Being

BackgroundThere is little research on the application of gamification to mental health and well-being. Furthermore, usage of gamification-related terminology is inconsistent. Current applications of gamification for health and well-being have also been critiqued for adopting a behaviorist approach that relies on positive reinforcement and extrinsic motivators.ObjectiveThis study aimed to analyze current applications of gamification for mental health and well-being by answering 3 research questions (RQs). RQ1: which gamification elements are most commonly applied to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being? RQ2: which mental health and well-being domains are most commonly targeted by these gamified apps and technologies? RQ3: what reasons do researchers give for applying gamification to these apps and technologies? A systematic review of the literature was conducted to answer these questions.MethodsWe searched ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, IEEE Explore, JMIR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science for qualifying papers published between the years 2013 and 2018. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, papers were coded for gamification elements and mental health and well-being domains according to existing taxonomies in the game studies and medical literature. During the coding process, it was necessary to adapt our coding frame and revise these taxonomies. Thematic analysis was conducted to answer RQ3.ResultsThe search and screening process identified 70 qualifying papers that collectively reported on 50 apps and technologies. The most commonly observed gamification elements were levels or progress feedback, points or scoring, rewards or prizes, narrative or theme, personalization, and customization; the least commonly observed elements were artificial assistance, unlockable content, social cooperation, exploratory or open-world approach, artificial challenge, and randomness. The most commonly observed mental health and well-being domains were anxiety disorders and well-being, whereas the least commonly observed domains were conduct disorder and bipolar disorders. Researchers’ justification for applying gamification to improving mental health and well-being was coded in 59% (41/70) of the papers and was broadly divided into 2 themes: (1) promoting engagement and (2) enhancing an intervention’s intended effects.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the current application of gamification to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being does not align with the trend of positive reinforcement critiqued in the greater health and well-being literature. We also observed overlap between the most commonly used gamification techniques and existing behavior change frameworks. Results also suggest that the application of gamification is not driven by health behavior change theory, and that many researchers may treat gamification as a black box without consideration for its underlying mechanisms. We call for the inclusion of more comprehensive and explicit descriptions of how gamification is applied and the standardization of applied games terminology within and across fields.

scholarly journals Evidence on the contribution of community gardens to promote physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e0255621
Author(s):  
Tarsila Lampert ◽  
Joana Costa ◽  
Osvaldo Santos ◽  
Joana Sousa ◽  
Teresa Ribeiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Community Gardens ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Community Gardening ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Health Gains ◽  
Health And Well Being

Introduction There has been growing interest in community gardens as an effective and affordable health promotion strategy. However, most available evidence is derived from qualitative studies, whereas quantitative research on this subject is limited. Objectives To synthetize the literature about physical and mental health outcomes associated with community gardening. Two main questions were addressed: a) is there evidence, from quantitative studies, that community gardening is associated to physical and mental health and well-being of non-institutionalized individuals? b) Does community gardening provokes any discomfort in terms of physical health, i.e., bodily pain, to their beneficiaries? Methods A systematic review of the literature was carried out following PRISMA guidelines by searching relevant electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science). Empirical, quantitative studies published in English with no restrictions concerning the date of publication were considered eligible. The quality of the evidence was appraised using the tool developed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results Overall, 8 studies were considered eligible, of which seven studies were rated as having good methodological quality (one scored as fair). Community gardeners had significantly better health outcomes than their neighbours not engaged in gardening activities in terms of life satisfaction, happiness, general health, mental health, and social cohesion. Conclusion Community gardens are associated to health gains for their users, irrespective of age, being an affordable and efficient way of promoting physical and mental health and well-being. To encourage the design, maintenance, and prospective evaluation of supportive urban environments promoting healthy and, at the same time, sustainable lifestyles, is essential to achieve public health gains and environmental sustainability.

scholarly journals Life under COVID-19 for LGBT+ people in the UK: systematic review of UK research on the impact of COVID-19 on sexual and gender minority populations

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e050092
Author(s):  
Victoria J McGowan ◽  
Hayley J Lowther ◽  
Catherine Meads
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Sexual Orientation ◽  
Gender Identity ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Gender Minority ◽  
Sexual And Gender Minority ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health And Well Being

ObjectiveTo systematically review all published and unpublished evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of UK sexual and gender minority (LGBT+; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, intersex and queer) people.MethodsAny relevant studies with or without comparator were included, with outcomes of: COVID-19 incidence, hospitalisation rates, illness severity, death rates, other health and well-being. Six databases (platforms) were searched—CINAHL Plus (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Cochrane Library), Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Scopus between 2019 and 2020 in December 2020, using synonyms for sexual and gender minorities and COVID-19 search terms. Data extraction and quality assessment (using the relevant Joanna Briggs checklist) were in duplicate with differences resolved through discussion. Results were tabulated and synthesis was through narrative description.ResultsNo published research was found on any outcomes. Eleven grey literature reports found to be of low quality were included, mostly conducted by small LGBT+ charities. Only four had heterosexual/cisgender comparators. Mental health and well-being, health behaviours, safety, social connectedness and access to routine healthcare all showed poorer or worse outcomes than comparators.ConclusionsLack of research gives significant concern, given pre-existing health inequities. Social and structural factors may have contributed to poorer outcomes (mental health, well-being and access to healthcare). Paucity of evidence is driven by lack of routinely collected sexual orientation and gender identity data, possibly resulting from institutional homophobia/transphobia which needs to be addressed. Men are more at risk of serious illness from COVID-19 than women, so using data from trans women and men might have started to answer questions around whether higher rates were due to sex hormone or chromosomal effects. Routine data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity is required to examine the extent to which COVID-19 is widening pre-existing health inequalities.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020224304.

scholarly journals Well-being and mental health interventions for Indigenous people in prison: systematic review

BJPsych Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Perdacher ◽  
David Kavanagh ◽  
Jeanie Sheffield
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Indigenous People ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Poor Mental Health ◽  
Western Model ◽  
Being There ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health And Well Being

Background Indigenous people are overrepresented in prison populations of colonised justice systems, and Indigenous prisoners in these countries are at a particularly high risk of poor mental health and well-being. There is an acute need to ensure the access of these groups to culturally appropriate, evidence-based interventions. Aims To conduct a systematic review, evaluating quantitative and qualitative evaluations of mental health and well-being interventions designed for Indigenous people in custody. Method A search of relevant peer-reviewed journal articles to August 2019 was conducted. The focus was on colonised countries under a Western model of justice and health, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. The review utilised Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, PsycNET, EBSCO, Proquest Criminal Justice Database and Informit. Results Of the 9283 articles initially found, only three quantitative and two qualitative evaluations of mental health or well-being interventions for Indigenous people in custody were identified. None were randomised controlled trials. Culturally based interventions appeared to have high acceptability and potential for increased recovery from trauma, reduced alcohol-related problems and lower reoffending. However, no studies quantitatively assessed mental health or well-being outcomes. Conclusions As yet there is no high-quality evidence on the impact on mental health and well-being from interventions specifically for Indigenous prisoners, although existing studies suggest programme features that may maximise acceptability and impact. There is a moral, social and practical imperative to build a strong evidence base on this topic.

scholarly journals Detrimental changes to the health and well-being of healthcare workers in an Australian COVID-19 hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne M Stubbs ◽  
Helen M Achat ◽  
Suzanne Schindeler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Distress Scale ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Health And Well Being

Abstract Background Most studies examining the psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCWs) have assessed well-being during the initial stages or the peak of the first wave of the pandemic. We aimed to measure the impact of COVID-19 and potential changes over time in its impact, on the health and well-being of HCWs in an Australian COVID-19 hospital. Methods An online questionnaire assessed current and retrospective physical and mental health; psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale); lifestyle behaviours; and demographics, providing measures of health and wellbeing at three phases of the pandemic. Targeted staff were invited to participate via email and in-person. Additional promotional activities were directed to all staff. Changes in general health, mental health and psychological distress were examined using McNemar’s Chi-square. Associations between other categorical variables were tested using Chi-Square or non-parametric equivalents as appropriate. Logistic regression explored risk factors for current distress. Results Four hundred thirty-three eligible HCWs answered all (74 %) or part of the questionnaire. Current self-rated health and mental health were significantly better than during the height of the pandemic, but had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Psychological distress was significantly more common during the height of the pandemic (34.2 %) than currently (22.4 %), and during the height of the pandemic distress was significantly more common among younger than older HCWs. Females were significantly more likely to be distressed that males currently, but not during the height of the pandemic. High distress during the height of the pandemic was more likely to be maintained by HCWs who were less physically active than usual during the height of the pandemic (OR = 5.5); had low self-rated mental health before the pandemic (OR = 4.8); and who had 10 or more years of professional experience (OR = 3.9). Conclusions The adverse effects of the pandemic on HCWs have lessened with the easing of pandemic demands, but health and well-being have not reverted to pre-pandemic levels. This indicates continued exposure to elevated levels of stress and/or a sustained effect of earlier exposure. Initiatives that provide ongoing support beyond the pandemic are needed to ensure that HCWs remain physically and mentally healthy and are able to continue their invaluable work.

scholarly journals Gamification in Apps and Technologies for Improving Mental Health and Well-Being: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa Wan Sze Cheng ◽  
Tracey Davenport ◽  
Daniel Johnson ◽  
Kellie Vella ◽  
Ian B Hickie
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Behavior Change ◽  
Positive Reinforcement ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Health Behavior Change ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Current Application ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Health And Well Being

BACKGROUND There is little research on the application of gamification to mental health and well-being. Furthermore, usage of gamification-related terminology is inconsistent. Current applications of gamification for health and well-being have also been critiqued for adopting a behaviorist approach that relies on positive reinforcement and extrinsic motivators. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to analyze current applications of gamification for mental health and well-being by answering 3 research questions (RQs). RQ1: which gamification elements are most commonly applied to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being? RQ2: which mental health and well-being domains are most commonly targeted by these gamified apps and technologies? RQ3: what reasons do researchers give for applying gamification to these apps and technologies? A systematic review of the literature was conducted to answer these questions. METHODS We searched ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, IEEE Explore, JMIR, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science for qualifying papers published between the years 2013 and 2018. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, papers were coded for gamification elements and mental health and well-being domains according to existing taxonomies in the game studies and medical literature. During the coding process, it was necessary to adapt our coding frame and revise these taxonomies. Thematic analysis was conducted to answer RQ3. RESULTS The search and screening process identified 70 qualifying papers that collectively reported on 50 apps and technologies. The most commonly observed gamification elements were levels or progress feedback, points or scoring, rewards or prizes, narrative or theme, personalization, and customization; the least commonly observed elements were artificial assistance, unlockable content, social cooperation, exploratory or open-world approach, artificial challenge, and randomness. The most commonly observed mental health and well-being domains were anxiety disorders and well-being, whereas the least commonly observed domains were conduct disorder and bipolar disorders. Researchers’ justification for applying gamification to improving mental health and well-being was coded in 59% (41/70) of the papers and was broadly divided into 2 themes: (1) promoting engagement and (2) enhancing an intervention’s intended effects. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that the current application of gamification to apps and technologies for improving mental health and well-being does not align with the trend of positive reinforcement critiqued in the greater health and well-being literature. We also observed overlap between the most commonly used gamification techniques and existing behavior change frameworks. Results also suggest that the application of gamification is not driven by health behavior change theory, and that many researchers may treat gamification as a black box without consideration for its underlying mechanisms. We call for the inclusion of more comprehensive and explicit descriptions of how gamification is applied and the standardization of applied games terminology within and across fields.

scholarly journals Misuse of medication in adult substance misuse services: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Substance Misuse ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Treatment Services ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.

scholarly journals Assessing the impact of the European resilience curriculum in preschool, early and late primary school children

2021 ◽  
pp. 014303432110250
Author(s):  
Celeste Simões ◽  
Anabela C. Santos ◽  
Paula Lebre ◽  
João R. Daniel ◽  
Cátia Branquinho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Mental Health Difficulties ◽  
Prosocial Behaviours ◽  
The Impact

Resilience is an individual’s ability to adapt successfully to and persevere during and after significant challenges. Resilience programmes based on a socioemotional learning approach have been associated with an increase in protextive factors (e.g., prosocial competencies), improvements in physical and mental health, and a decrease in internalised and externalised symptoms. The present study aimed to evaluate the impact of the RESCUR curriculum implemented in Portuguese schools on students’ academic, behavioural, and socioemotional outcomes, based on child and teacher reports. Participants included 1,084 children (53.2% male) aged 3-15 ( M = 7.24, SD = 2.31). A quasi-experimental study compared outcomes for an experimental intervention group (AIG) with a waiting list control group (WG). The results showed the RESCUR programme decreased mental health difficulties while increasing both prosocial behaviours and well-being. In addition, academic performance increased for those in preschool after implementation. Both teachers and children consistently reported positive behavioural changes in resilience-related competencies after implementing RESCUR. Our findings contribute to the recent research on the potential of RESCUR to address key socioemotional competencies and improve relevant protextive factors. Study limitations and future recommendations are addressed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document