Cited by 53Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth disparities and outcomesCultural Competency in Health Care

Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators

Open access
Arundell, Laura-Louise, Greenwood, Helen, Baldwin, Helen, Kotas, Eleanor, Smith, Shubulade, Trojanowska, Kasia, Cooper, Chris·2020·Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care. METHODS: A systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included. RESULTS: Overall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13643-020-01333-6

Cites

162 of 162 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Arundell and colleagues found that strategies including increasing inclusivity, audio-visual displays, culturally relevant tools, co-creating interventions with communities, training staff to communicate with marginalised communities, and using positive language contributed to improved access to care.

    “They found that employing the following strategies contributed to improved access to care: increasing inclusivity in programmes for individuals with various learning disabilities”
  • Four of the seven reviews focused on high-income countries and three had no geographical limitations.

    “Four focused on HICs [99][100][101][102] and three had no geographical limitations.[103][104][105]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [1]Department of Health and Social Care Modernising the Mental Health Act: increasing choice, reducing compulsion. Final report of the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 2018 UK Department of Health & Social Care
  2. [21]Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines for systematic review and evidence synthesis in environmental management 2013 Bangor Environmental Evidence
  3. [28]Lefebvre C Glanville J Briscoe S Littlewood A Marshall C Metzendorf M-I Chapter 4: searching for and selecting studies Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 60 (updated July 2019). Cochrane 2019

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arundell, L.-L., Greenwood, H., Baldwin, H., Kotas, E., Smith, S., Trojanowska, K., & Cooper, C.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Royal College of Psychiatrists (GB)
  • University of York (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Arundell, Laura-Louise
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
115-115
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3030435011
Cited by
53
References
162
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
NHS England (N/A)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
Keywords
mental health disparities, intervention, economic evaluation, barriers and facilitators, access to mental health care, socioeconomic factors, racial disparities, psychological support, protected characteristics, cost-effectiveness
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Mental Health, Research Design, Socioeconomic Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review