BMJ open · 2021
Exploration of recovery of people living with severe mental illness (SMI) in low/middle-income countries (LMICs): a scoping review.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАScoping ReviewНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gamieldien Fadia, Galvaan Roshan, Myers Bronwyn, Syed Zarina, Sorsdahl Katherine
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine the literature on how recovery of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is conceptualised in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), and in particular what factors are thought to facilitate recovery.
DESIGN: Scoping review.
DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: We searched 14 electronic databases, hand searched citations and consulted with experts during the period May-December 2019. Eligible studies were independently screened for inclusion and exclusion by two reviewers. Unresolved discrepancies were referred to a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All bibliographical data and study characteristics were extracted using a data charting form. Selected studies were analysed through a thematic analysis emerging from extracted data.
RESULTS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram offers a summary of the results: 4201 titles, 1530 abstracts and 109 full-text articles were screened. Ten articles were selected for inclusion: two from Turkey, two from India, and one each from China, Swaziland, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. Although most studies used qualitative methods, data collection and sampling methods were heterogeneous. One study reported on service provider perspectives while the rest provided perspectives from a combination of service users and caregivers. Three themes emerged from the data analysis. First, studies frame recovery as a personal journey occurring along a continuum. Second, there was an emphasis on social relationships as a facilitator of recovery. Third, spirituality emerged as both a facilitator and an indicator of recovery. These themes were not mutually exclusive and some overlap exists.
CONCLUSION: Although there were commonalities with how high-income countries describe recovery, we also found differences in conceptualisation. These differences in how recovery was understood reflect the importance of framing the personal recovery concept in relation to local needs and contextual issues found in LMICs. This review highlighted the current sparse evidence base and the need to better understand recovery from SMI in LMICs.
DESIGN: Scoping review.
DATA SOURCES AND ELIGIBILITY: We searched 14 electronic databases, hand searched citations and consulted with experts during the period May-December 2019. Eligible studies were independently screened for inclusion and exclusion by two reviewers. Unresolved discrepancies were referred to a third reviewer.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All bibliographical data and study characteristics were extracted using a data charting form. Selected studies were analysed through a thematic analysis emerging from extracted data.
RESULTS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram offers a summary of the results: 4201 titles, 1530 abstracts and 109 full-text articles were screened. Ten articles were selected for inclusion: two from Turkey, two from India, and one each from China, Swaziland, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa and Vietnam. Although most studies used qualitative methods, data collection and sampling methods were heterogeneous. One study reported on service provider perspectives while the rest provided perspectives from a combination of service users and caregivers. Three themes emerged from the data analysis. First, studies frame recovery as a personal journey occurring along a continuum. Second, there was an emphasis on social relationships as a facilitator of recovery. Third, spirituality emerged as both a facilitator and an indicator of recovery. These themes were not mutually exclusive and some overlap exists.
CONCLUSION: Although there were commonalities with how high-income countries describe recovery, we also found differences in conceptualisation. These differences in how recovery was understood reflect the importance of framing the personal recovery concept in relation to local needs and contextual issues found in LMICs. This review highlighted the current sparse evidence base and the need to better understand recovery from SMI in LMICs.