Literature Reviews in Mental Health Research

Session 9: 8th Nov Study Notes

• Literature Searches and Systematic Literature Reviews

  • Lead Teachers: Sarah Rowe
  • Topics covered: Principles and Processes of Systematic Reviews
  • Reading list: PSBS0002: Core Principles of Mental Health Research, University College London (talis.com)

• Class Prep:

  • Additional Resources
    • A 24-Step Guide on How to Design, Conduct, and Successfully Publish a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Medical Research (read)
    • Maudsley Debates (webpage)
    • A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials of Peer Support for People with Severe Mental Illness (read)
    • LibGuides at UCL (webpage)
    • 5 Key Things to Know About Meta-Analysis (read)
    • Guidance Notes for Registering a Systematic Review Protocol with PROSPERO (read)
    • PROSPERO (webpage)
    • The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (website)
    • The Cochrane Collaboration Website (website)

• Planning the Review

  • Define the Research Question: Clearly specify the research using the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design)
  • Develop a Protocol: Create a detailed protocol detailing methods of the review, including inclusion/exclusion criteria, search strategy, data extraction, quality assessment, and analysis plan. Register the protocol with a database like PROSPERO.

• Conducting the Review

  • Literature Search: Search multiple electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library), use a comprehensive search strategy with relevant keywords and MeSH terms, include grey literature, and document the entire search process.
  • Study Selection: Independently screen titles and abstracts from at least two reviewers. Assess full texts of potentially eligible studies and resolve any disagreements. Document reasons for exclusion.
  • Data Extraction: Use a standardized form to extract relevant data from included studies. Two reviewers should independently extract data to ensure accuracy.

• Analyzing and Reporting Results

  • Data Synthesis: Conduct a narrative synthesis of findings; perform meta-analyses to pool quantitative results if appropriate; assess heterogeneity between studies and consider subgroup analyses or meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity.
  • Interpret Findings: Summarize main results, discuss strengths and limitations of review, and consider implications for practice and future research.
  • Reporting: Adhere to the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. Clearly and completely describe methods, results, and conclusions. Use tables and figures when appropriate. Acknowledge potential biases (like publication bias).

• Additional Considerations

  • Involve stakeholders like patients and clinicians in the review process.
  • Update the review regularly to incorporate new evidence.

• Key: PRISMA

  • The PRISMA 2020 statement is a guideline for reporting systematic reviews, improving transparency and completeness.
  • Covers purpose and scope, key components (checklist, expanded checklist, abstract checklist, flow diagrams etc), main updates (reporting on search strategies, selection, analysis and modifications for improved implementation), and intended benefits (increased transparency, enhancing reader ability to assess findings of the review, facilitating evidence-based decision-making).

• Key: Pre-Lecture Literature Review

  • Summarise and synthesis previously published academic research on the topic in question, including research findings from studies, a summary of the quality of the studies, and the current evidence on the relevant topic.

• Key: Systematic Review

  • Reports a comprehensive and reproducible search.
  • Uses exhaustive steps to trace all relevant evidence.

• Meta-Analysis

  • Statistical pooling of similar research results from different studies—often leading to greater statistical power than individual original studies. The purpose is to assess overall effect size and its significance between and within studies.

• Advantages of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

  • Avoids subjectivity by comprehensively evaluating all available data. Prevents missing evidence, especially important when pooling data to improve the overall quality of results.

• Limitations of Systematic Reviews

  • Publication bias: Negative or non-significant results can be less often published than positive findings.
  • Variation amongst study design, participants, interventions and time periods.
  • Consider all available information, not just readily accessible data. This includes gray literature, reports or data that is sometimes overlooked.

• Designing Systematic Reviews

  • Define a Research Question: As precise and detailed as possible.
  • Consider PRISMA Guidelines: Use these standards for reporting and consider consulting with information technologists or librarians.
  • Define Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, study design). Identify the characteristics of the research participants, intervention and outcome measurements, comparators of the experimental group, and the type of studies to be included in the review.
  • Specify Sources/Languages/Dates: Specify the sources to be searched and the date range criteria for searches (e.g., databases, grey literature sources). Specify the language criteria and review the inclusion parameters.
  • Decide on Data Extraction Methods: Use forms to extract data to ensure accuracy and repeatability, including important details on study design, study context, results, and related information from each included study.
  • Decide how to Synthesise Studies: Determine whether meta-analysis is appropriate and, if appropriate, the approach for pooling and summarizing results. Evaluate for study similarity through consistent quality and consideration of statistical reporting.
  • Register Protocol: Use the international prospective registry of systematic reviews—PROSPERO.

• Practical Example

  • Develop a search strategy for a review of psychological interventions for adolescents who self-harm.
  • Use the PICOS framework, including specific details on population (aged 12–18), interventions (CBT, Psychodynamic Therapy, Problem-Solving Therapy), comparators (Treatment as Usual or waitlist controls), outcomes (self-harm frequency, intensity, inpatient bed use, social functioning), and study design (randomized controlled trials).

• Information Sources: - UCL Library services. - Bibliographic Databases (use at least 3~6 databases). - Useful Databases for MH Research, including Medline, Pubmed etc - Grey literature sources (PhD theses, reports, etc.).

Explore the essential principles and processes involved in conducting systematic literature reviews, especially within mental health research. This quiz covers key resources and guidance, including protocols for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Perfect for students and professionals looking to enhance their knowledge in evidence-based practices.