Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40759520›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Access, inequalities and annual health checks (AHCs) for adults living with severe mental illness in the UK: a mixed-methods systematic review.

Janine Owens, Rathi Ravindrarajah, Gill Norman, Elinor Hopkin, Chunhu Shi, Karina Lovell, Penny E Bee

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Janine OwensSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK janine.owens@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9108-4005
Rathi RavindrarajahSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4875-4912
Gill NormanNIHR Innovation Observatory, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Elinor HopkinFaculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Chunhu ShiSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0151-0451
Karina LovellSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Penny E BeeSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social work, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIndividuals living with severe mental illness (SMI) are at a significantly higher risk of mortality. This mixed-methods systematic review identifies and explores factors, including access inequalities to annual health checks (AHCs), for people living with SMI sharing protected characteristics in the UK, as identified in Core20PLUS5.

designMixed-methods systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, Google Scholar and the grey literature were searched from 1 January 2004 to 30 January 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were adults >18 years of age living with SMI. We included studies of AHCs, short health screening interventions, health promotion interventions, considering or aiming to improve uptake and/or access to screening for people living with SMI. We included mixed-methods and quantitative studies: randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled studies, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and process evaluations. We also included qualitative studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the evidence for inclusion using the eligibility criteria at title, abstract and at full-text screening. Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies was used for methodological quality. Analysis used Levesque's Conceptual Framework of Access as an a priori framework and dimensions of equality from Core20PLUS5 and PROGRESS PLUS. Separate and independent quantitative and qualitative narrative syntheses and integration of the evidence from both occurred.

results36 studies were included. Five studies applied reasonable adjustments to increase access to AHCs but lacked evaluation, controls and comparisons. 26 studies failed to discuss deprivation or ethnicity and only 6 studies discussed barriers and facilitators of access to AHCs for people of different ethnic, linguistic or cultural backgrounds. There was no evidence for interventions improving access to AHCs. Access focused primarily on dimensions of services, over abilities to access AHCs for people living with SMI.

conclusionsThere are access inequalities to AHCs for people living with SMI sharing protected characteristics. Robust research is urgently needed to identify, modify and ameliorate barriers to the policy recommended AHCs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023437905.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityMass ScreeningMental DisordersAdultHumansUnited KingdomDelivery of Health Care, IntegratedHealth Services AccessibilityMENTAL HEALTHSchizophrenia & psychotic disorders

Identifiers

PMID40759520
PMCPMC12323543

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.