Dr Caitlin Fehily

Objective: To review recent published trials of nutrition and dietary interventions for people with serious mental illness; to assess their effectiveness in improving metabolic syndrome risk factors. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials of interventions with a nutrition/diet-related component delivered to people with serious mental illness, published 1 January 2010 ¿ 6 September 2021. Primary outcomes were weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Secondary outcomes were total serum cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglyceride, and blood glucose levels. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and CENTRAL databases. In addition, reference lists of relevant publications were examined for further additional studies. Data synthesis: Twenty-five studies encompassing 26 intervention arms were included in our analysis. Eight studies were at low or some risk of bias, seventeen were deemed to be at high risk. Eight of seventeen intervention arms found statistically significant intervention effects on weight, ten of 24 on BMI, and seven of seventeen on waist circumference. The pooled effects of nutrition interventions on metabolic syndrome risk factors were statistically non-significant. However, we identified small size effects on weight for interventions delivered by dietitians (five studies; 262 intervention, 258 control participants; standardised mean difference [SMD], ¿0.28; 95% CI, ¿0.51 to ¿0.04) and interventions consisting of individual sessions only (three studies; 141 intervention, 134 control participants; SMD, ¿0.30; 95% CI, ¿0.54 to ¿0.06). Conclusions: We found only limited evidence for nutrition interventions improving metabolic syndrome risk factors in people with serious mental illness. However, they may be more effective when delivered on an individual basis or by dietitians. PROSPERO registration: CRD42021235979 (prospective).

People with a mental illness experience a disproportionate burden of chronic disease morbidity and mortality; contributed to by a higher prevalence of health risk behaviours that increase the risk of chronic disease development. Amongst this population there is little understanding of multiple risk behaviour co-occurrence and client interest in improving multiple such risks. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken with a random selection of 557 clients of 12 community mental health services in Australia. Participants reported their engagement in health risk behaviours (tobacco smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, inadequate fruit and/or vegetable consumption, and inadequate physical activity), and those deemed ¿at risk¿ reported whether they were seriously considering improving their risk behaviours. Almost all participants engaged in at least one risk behaviour (96.1%), with 78.4% of participants engaging in two or more risk behaviours. Of those with two risks, the most frequently paired behaviours were inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption and inadequate physical activity (39.7%); of those with three risks the most common combination was inadequate fruit and vegetable consumption, tobacco smoking and harmful alcohol consumption (42.5%). Of those at risk for all behaviours, 68.4% were interested in improving multiple behaviours, and 14% were interested in improving all; with these participants being most frequently interested in changing smoking, nutrition, and physical activity (19.3%), followed by all risk behaviours (14.0%). The findings strengthen the evidence that people with a mental illness are interested in improving their health risk behaviours and indicate a need to address the multiple health risks in this population group.

Introduction: The prevalence of smoking among persons with a mental illness has remained unchanged, being 2-3 times higher than the general population in high-income countries. Assessment of the volume and characteristics of research output over time can assist in identifying research priorities to promote progress within a field. The aim of this study was to undertake such an assessment in the field of smoking and mental illness. Methods: A descriptive repeat cross-sectional study was conducted of peer-reviewed publications in Medline and PsycINFO for the periods 1993-1995, 2003-2005, and 2013-2015. Publications were classified as data- or non-data-based; data-based publications were further categorized by study type, population, setting, and for intervention-focused publications by level of evidence and research translation phase. Results: Included were 547 articles published in 1993-1995 (n = 65), 2003-2005 (n = 153), and 2013-2015 (n = 329). The number and proportion of data-based publications significantly increased over time, although their focus remained predominantly descriptive (=83%); less than 14% of publications in any period had an intervention focus. The proportion of publications reporting on study populations with multiple diagnostic categories and recruiting from nonmental health settings, significantly increased from 1993-1995 to 2003-2005, however then plateaued by 2013-2015. The level of evidence provided by intervention-focused publications was suggested to increase over time, however there was no evident variation in translation phase. Conclusions: Research has increased over time to characterize smoking among those with a mental illness; however more is needed to inform the development and implementation of effective cessation interventions for this group. Implications: This is the first study to examine the volume and characteristics of research publications in the field of smoking and mental illness over time. The number of publications increased fivefold between 1993-1995 and 2013-2015. Between 1993-1995 and 2003-2005, progression was also indicated by increased: data-based publications, diagnostic diversity of samples, and variation in study settings; however further increases in such measures were not evident in 2013-2015. Notably, it continues to be the case that few intervention studies are undertaken. To achieve meaningful changes in the smoking prevalence of this group, a greater focus on research that assesses the effectiveness and implementation of tailored cessation interventions is required.