You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 14, Issue 7
  • Characteristics of quality improvement interventions to improve physical healthcare in mental health settings: a scoping review protocol

Article Text

Article menu
Mental health
Protocol
Characteristics of quality improvement interventions to improve physical healthcare in mental health settings: a scoping review protocol
  1. Di Hu1,2,
  2. Victoria Stewart1,2,3,
  3. Amanda J Wheeler1,2,3,4,5,
  4. Geoffrey Lau6,
  5. Justin Chapman1,5,6
  1. 1Centre for Mental Health, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
  5. 5The ALIVE National Centre for Mental Health Research Translation, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6Metro South Health, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Di Hu; di.hu{at}griffith.edu.au

Abstract

Introduction Mental health concerns globally impact millions of people, resulting in significant financial impact and adverse health outcomes. People living with mental health concerns are at higher risk of developing physical health issues, which can lead to a shortened life expectancy. Barriers to physical healthcare, such as limited service capacity, low help seeking and stigma, contribute to health disadvantage. Quality improvement (QI) interventions can address these challenges by addressing staff-level and service-level factors to improve the focus on physical healthcare in mental health settings. The aim of this scoping review is to describe studies of QI interventions to improve physical healthcare in mental health settings.

Methods and analysis The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with guidance for scoping reviews from the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual and in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic review search for peer-reviewed and published articles will be conducted across eight databases: PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ProQuest Central, PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus and Embase (Elsevier). Two independent reviewers will screen the titles, abstracts and full text using Covidence. Any disagreement will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Data collection will be facilitated using Microsoft Excel. The details of included studies will be extracted by two authors independently.

Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval is required for the scoping review. The results of this review will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This review will also inform the development of a QI strategy to influence mental health staff practices in the provision of physical healthcare in Australian mental health settings.

  • mental health
  • quality in health care
  • health services
  • psychiatry
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083753

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • X @@Annahudidi, @v_stewart001, @@AmandaJWheeler1, @@justinjchapman

    • Contributors The lead author (DH) led the study conceptualisation, protocol development and writing of the protocol manuscript, and will lead the conduct of the review. DH was also responsible for the overall content as guarantor. JC, VS, GL and AJW have supervised the lead author throughout the process of study conceptualisation and protocol development and will support the conduct of the review. All authors contributed to the editing of the protocol manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.