ReviewPalliative care and social practice2026
Are there inequities in the assessment or management of pain for people with severe mental illness living with life-threatening diseases? A mixed-methods systematic review.
Review in Palliative care and social practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are there inequities in the assessment or management of pain for people with severe mental illness living with life-threatening diseases? A mixed-methods systematic review.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pain relief is a fundamental human right, yet evidence suggests access to analgesia is not equitably distributed. People with severe mental illness (SMI) experience significant disparities in healthcare during life, which may also be mirrored at the end of life. This systematic review examines the extent of inequities and underlying factors contributing to disparities in pain care for people with SMI and life-threatening diseases. Methods: A mixed-methods systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO and EThOS (January 2000-September 2024), hand-searching key journals and citation tracking. Two reviewers independently screened studies, and data were extracted using a standardised approach. A narrative synthesis was used to integrate findings. Results: Two thousand nine hundred seven records were identified, with eight studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Study quality ranged from 'very low' to 'high'. All quantitative studies were retrospective analyses of routine healthcare data, examining analgesic prescribing for people with schizophrenia. Despite variability in outcome measures, all studies found that individuals with schizophrenia received significantly less analgesia than those without SMI. Four qualitative studies explored clinicians' views on providing pain care to patients with SMI; only one study included patient experiences. Identified barriers to optimal pain management included patient-related factors (e.g. difficulties in pain expression, behavioural symptoms), clinician-related factors (e.g. diagnostic overshadowing, stigma) and systemic issues (e.g. fragmented care, restrictive prescribing practices). Conclusion: There is a striking lack of research on pain assessment and management for people with SMI and life-threatening illnesses, yet available evidence indicates clear inequities in care. These disparities may be driven by intersecting structural, social and clinical barriers, contributing to poorer end-of-life experiences. Addressing this gap requires urgent action from clinicians, policymakers and researchers. Future work should combine population-based studies to quantify prescribing disparities with qualitative research involving people with lived experience of SMI and their carers. Participatory, co-produced approaches are essential.
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.