SynthesisBMJ open2025
Access, inequalities and annual health checks (AHCs) for adults living with severe mental illness in the UK: a mixed-methods systematic review.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Virtual Consultations for People With Intellectual Disabilities in General Practice and Community Care: Mixed Methods Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.