Exploring determinants of self-management in adults with severe mental illness: a qualitative evidence synthesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aims To systematically review and synthesise qualitative evidence about determinants of self-management in adults with SMI. The goal is to use findings from this review to inform the design of effective self-management strategies for people with SMI and LTCs. Background People living with serious mental illness (SMI) have a reduced life expectancy by around 15–20 years, mainly due to the high prevalence of long-term physical conditions such as diabetes and heart disease. People with SMI face many challenges when trying to manage their physical health. Little is known about the determinants of self-management – managing the emotional and practical issues – of long-term conditions (LTCs) for people with SMI. Method Six databases, including CINAHL and MEDLINE, were searched to identify qualitative studies that explored people's perceptions about determinants of self-management in adults with SMI (with or without comorbid LTCs). Self-management was defined according to the American Association of Diabetes Educator's self-care behaviours (AADE7). Determinants were defined according to the Capabilities, Opportunity, Motivations and Behaviours (COM-B) framework. Eligible studies were purposively sampled for synthesis according to the richness of the data (assessed using Ames et al (2017)'s data richness scale), and thematically synthesised. Result Twenty-six articles were included in the synthesis. Seven studies focused on self-management of LTCs, with the remaining articles exploring self-management of SMI. Six analytic themes and 28 sub-themes were identified from the synthesis. The themes included: the additional burden of SMI; living with comorbidities; beliefs and attitudes about self-management; support from others for self-management; social and environmental factors; routine, structure and planning. Capabilities for self-management were linked to people's perceptions about the support they received for their SMI and LTC from healthcare professionals, family and friends. Opportunities for self-management were more commonly expressed in the context of social and environmental factors. Motivation for self-management was influenced by beliefs and attitudes, whilst being closely related to the burden of SMI. Conclusion The themes identified from the synthesis suggest that capabilities, opportunities and motivations for self-management can be negatively influenced by the experience of SMI, whilst social and professional support, improved access to resources, and increased involvement in care, could promote self-management. Support programmes for people with SMI and LTCs need to account for these experiences and adapt to meet the unique needs of this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,064 | 0,118 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,014 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».