Breast cancer screening in women with mental illness: comparative meta-analysis of mammography uptake
01 Dec 2014-British Journal of Psychiatry (The Royal College of Psychiatrists)-Vol. 205, Iss: 6, pp 428-435
TL;DR: Rates of mammography screening are lower in women with mental illness, particularly women with SMI, and this is not explained by the presence of emotional distress, clearly extend into preventive population screening.
Abstract: Background
There is a higher mortality rate due to cancer in people with mental illness and previous work suggests suboptimal medical care in this population. It remains unclear if this extends to breast cancer population screening.
Aims
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish if women with a mental health condition are less likely to receive mammography screening compared with those without mental ill health.
Method
Major electronic databases were searched from inception until February 2014. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with a random effects meta-analysis comparing mammography screening rates among women with and without a mental illness. Results were stratified according to primary diagnosis including any mental illness, mood disorders, depression, severe mental illness (SMI), distress and anxiety.
Results
We identified 24 publications reporting breast cancer screening practices in women with mental illness ( n = 715 705). An additional 5 studies investigating screening for those with distress ( n = 21 491) but no diagnosis of mental disorder were identified. The pooled meta-analysis showed significantly reduced rates of mammography screening in women with mental illness (OR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.66-0.77), mood disorders (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90) and particularly SMI (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.45-0.65). No disparity was evident among women with distress alone.
Conclusions
Rates of mammography screening are lower in women with mental illness, particularly women with SMI, and this is not explained by the presence of emotional distress. Disparities in medical care due to mental illness clearly extend into preventive population screening.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a systematic review of randomized controlled trial evidence regarding non-pharmacological interventions for people living in their own homes was carried out and the results showed that person-centred care, communication skills training and adapted dementia care mapping decreased symptomatic and severe agitation in care homes immediately and for up to 6 months afterwards.
Abstract: Background
Agitation in dementia is common, persistent and distressing and can lead to care breakdown. Medication is often ineffective and harmful.
Aims
To systematically review randomised controlled trial evidence regarding non-pharmacological interventions.
Method
We reviewed 33 studies fitting predetermined criteria, assessed their validity and calculated standardised effect sizes (SES).
Results
Person-centred care, communication skills training and adapted dementia care mapping decreased symptomatic and severe agitation in care homes immediately (SES range 0.3-1.8) and for up to 6 months afterwards (SES range 0.2-2.2). Activities and music therapy by protocol (SES range 0.5-0.6) decreased overall agitation and sensory intervention decreased clinically significant agitation immediately. Aromatherapy and light therapy did not demonstrate efficacy.
Conclusions
There are evidence-based strategies for care homes. Future interventions should focus on consistent and long-term implementation through staff training. Further research is needed for people living in their own homes.
279 citations
King's College London1, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust2, University of Barcelona3, Carlos III Health Institute4, University of Padua5, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven6, Federal University of Ceará7, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland8, University of Leicester9, Kyambogo University10, Hofstra University11
TL;DR: This large multinational study demonstrates that physical health multimorbidity is increased across the psychosis-spectrum, and was increased in subclinical and established psychosis in all age ranges (18–44, 45–64, ≥ 65 years).
Abstract: In people with psychosis, physical comorbidities, including cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, are highly prevalent and leading contributors to the premature mortality encountered. However, little is known about physical health multimorbidity in this population or in people with subclinical psychosis and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study explores physical health multimorbidity patterns among people with psychosis or subclinical psychosis. Overall, data from 242,952 individuals from 48 LMICs, recruited via the World Health Survey, were included in this cross-sectional study. Participants were subdivided into those (1) with a lifetime diagnosis of psychosis (“psychosis”); (2) with more than one psychotic symptom in the past 12 months, but no lifetime diagnosis of psychosis (“subclinical psychosis”); and (3) without psychotic symptoms in the past 12 months or a lifetime diagnosis of psychosis (“controls”). Nine operationalized somatic disorders were examined: arthritis, angina pectoris, asthma, diabetes, chronic back pain, visual impairment, hearing problems, edentulism, and tuberculosis. The association between psychosis and multimorbidity was assessed by multivariable logistic regression analysis. The prevalence of multimorbidity (i.e., two or more physical health conditions) was: controls = 11.4% (95% CI, 11.0–11.8%); subclinical psychosis = 21.8% (95% CI, 20.6–23.0%), and psychosis = 36.0% (95% CI, 32.1–40.2%) (P < 0.0001). After adjustment for age, sex, education, country-wise wealth, and country, subclinical psychosis and psychosis were associated with 2.20 (95% CI, 2.02–2.39) and 4.05 (95% CI, 3.25–5.04) times higher odds for multimorbidity. Moreover, multimorbidity was increased in subclinical and established psychosis in all age ranges (18–44, 45–64, ≥ 65 years). However, multimorbidity was most evident in younger age groups, with people aged 18–44 years with psychosis at greatest odds of physical health multimorbidity (OR = 4.68; 95% CI, 3.46–6.32). This large multinational study demonstrates that physical health multimorbidity is increased across the psychosis-spectrum. Most notably, the association between multimorbidity and psychosis was stronger among younger adults, thus adding further impetus to the calls for the early intervention efforts to prevent the burden of physical health comorbidity at later stages. Urgent public health interventions are necessary not only for those with a psychosis diagnosis, but also for subclinical psychosis to address this considerable public health problem.
119 citations
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The average age of death in the schizophrenia population (62.2 years; 95% CI, 61.9-62.5) was lower compared to the general population (73.4-73.6).
Abstract: OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to describe secular trends in the average age of death in patients with schizophrenia and to compare these with the general population.
METHODS
This is a longitudinal linkage study from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2010 using the Danish Psychiatric Research Register and the Danish Cause of Death Register. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and survival analysis.
RESULTS
The average age of death in the schizophrenia population (62.2 years; 95% CI, 61.9-62.5) was lower compared to the general population (73.4 years; 95% CI, 73.4-73.4), P<0.001. In the general population we found, for men, an average increase in the age of death of 0.28 years (95% CI, 0.27-0.28) per calendar year, and for women an increase in age of death of 0.31 years (95% CI, 0.31-0.32) per calendar year (both P<0.001). In contrast, age of death decreased in the schizophrenia population: the change in average age of death for males was 0.04 years (95% CI, -0.09 to 0.00) per calendar year (P<0.05), and the comparable estimate for females was -0.05 years (95% CI, -0.09 to 0.01) per calendar year (P<0.05). A similar pattern existed after acts of self-harm as cause of death were excluded from the analyses. Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia had an increased mortality rate compared with the general population (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 2.01-2.09).
CONCLUSIONS
On average, patients with schizophrenia die younger than the general population, independent of intentional self-harm as cause of death.
107 citations
King's College London1, University of Padua2, University of Sydney3, University of Manchester4, University of Melbourne5, Linköping University6, Yonsei University7, University of Toronto8, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health9, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust10, University of Barcelona11, University of Queensland12, Dalhousie University13, Mental Health Services14
TL;DR: Screening was significantly less frequent in people with any mental disease compared with the general population for any cancer, and specific approaches should be developed to assist people with mental illness to undergo appropriate cancer screening, especially women with schizophrenia.
97 citations
TL;DR: The literature on disparities in medical and dental care experienced by people with schizophrenia is examined and possible approaches to improving health are suggested.
Abstract: Objective
Acquiring a diagnosis of schizophrenia reduces life expectancy for many reasons including poverty, difficulties in communication, side-effects of medication and access to care This mortality gap is driven by natural deaths; cardiovascular disease is a major cause, but outcomes for people with severe mental illness are worse for many physical health conditions, including cancer, fractures and complications of surgery We set out to examine the literature on disparities in medical and dental care experienced by people with schizophrenia and suggest possible approaches to improving health
Method
This narrative review used a targeted literature search to identify the literature on physical health disparities in schizophrenia
Results
There is evidence of inequitable access to and/or uptake of physical and dental health care by those with schizophrenia
Conclusion
The goal was to reduce the mortality gap through equity of access to all levels of health care, including acute care, long-term condition management, preventative medicine and health promotion We suggest solutions to promote health, wellbeing and longevity in this population, prioritising identification of and intervention for risk factors for premature morbidity and mortality Shared approaches are vital, while joint education of clinicians will help break down the artificial mind–body divide
94 citations
Cites background from "Breast cancer screening in women wi..."
...(71) showed that women with mental illness were significantly less likely to receive mammography screening compared with members of the general population....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice?
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis.
Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4
Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted?
A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …
45,105 citations
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure
37,989 citations
TL;DR: This paper examines eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of a certain treatment for a specified medical condition and suggests a simple noniterative procedure for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.
33,234 citations