Reliability of the Term “Serious Mental Illness”: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Objective:
The term “serious mental illness” (SMI) is widely used across research, practice, and policy settings. However, there is no consistent operational definition, and its reliability has not been systematically evaluated. The purpose of this review was to provide a comprehensive qualitative content analysis of “SMI” empirical research, including study and sample characteristics and SMI operational definitions. These data can provide important considerations for how stakeholders conceptualize SMI.
Methods:
Systematic review of PsycInfo, PsycArticles, and PubMed databases from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2019, identified 788 original empirical studies that characterized the sample as having “SMI.”
Results:
Descriptive content analysis indicated that most studies (85%) provided no operational definition for SMI. Only 15% defined the term, and an additional 26% provided examples of SMI that included only psychiatric diagnostic categories (e.g., SMI, such as schizophrenia). Of the 327 studies that provided any description of SMI, variability was noted regarding whether criteria included any mental health diagnosis (N=31) or only specified diagnoses (N=289), functional impairment (N=73), or any specified duration of symptoms (N=39). Across all studies that characterized samples as having SMI, substantial variability was noted regarding included diagnostic classifications.
Conclusions:
Referencing “SMI” is second nature for many stakeholders. Findings suggest that evidence-based practice and policy efforts should weigh the level of research support indicating that the construct and the term “SMI” lacks generalizability. Researchers and stakeholders are encouraged to develop precise and agreed-upon diagnostic language in their efforts to support and advocate for people with mental illnesses.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
This systematic review of 788 studies of samples of individuals with “serious mental illness” or “severe mental illness” (SMI) found that most studies did not provide any operational definition for these terms.
•
Among the 122 (15%) studies that defined SMI, substantial variation was found regarding criteria applied and diagnoses included.
•
This review demonstrates that the term “SMI” has poor reliability and validity across the empirical literature, and its use should be consistently defined in future research or suspended in the absence of clear operational definitions.
The constructs of “serious mental illness” and “severe mental illness” (the abbreviation SMI is used for both) have been priorities in public policy, mental health, and research funding initiatives in the United States and elsewhere (1–4). However, there is a lack of clarity and standardization regarding how SMI is operationally defined across contexts, including within legal standards, clinical settings, and scientific research literature (5). In addition to the arguments for empirical precision, there is the argument that by labeling already heavily stigmatized mental health diagnoses, such as schizophrenia (6), as “SMI,” we may be exacerbating the well-established consequences of stigma for individuals with these diagnoses, including social rejection and perceived incapacity (7). Considering the substantial treatment and policy efforts currently targeted toward SMI, it is important to evaluate the term’s reliability and validity.
Operational Definitions for “SMI”
The construct “severe and persistent mental illness” (SPMI) was utilized for decades prior to any attempts to formalize the nature and degree of diagnosis, disability, or illness duration (8). In their 1990 review, Schinnar and colleagues (8) identified SPMI criteria from 17 scientific publications. Researchers applied the separate criteria to an urban community mental health center sample (36% diagnosed as having schizophrenia or affective disorder) to identify the number of individuals meeting SPMI criteria. They found that depending on the criteria applied, anywhere from 4% to 88% of individuals met SPMI criteria.
“SMI” is not an official diagnostic term defined within existing classification systems, such as the DSM (9) or the ICD ( 10). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is variable in how it defines SMI. For example, on the APA-hosted “What is mental illness?” Web page (11), SMI is defined as “a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder (excluding developmental and substance use disorders) resulting in serious functional impairment that substantially interferes with or limits one or more life activities.” On its Web page specific to SMI (“What is serious mental illness?”) ( 12), APA’s SMI Adviser indicates that an individual who meets SMI criteria is “over the age of 18 who has (or had within the past year) a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder that causes serious functional impairment that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.” The National Institute of Mental Health definition of SMI is most like the latter criteria but without any reference to timing of illness (13).
Although quite similar, these criteria hold nuanced yet meaningful differences. The first set of criteria specifically exclude developmental disorders, such as intellectual disability, which cannot be treated in the traditional sense; rather, individuals with intellectual disability are provided support to compensate for low intellectual and adaptive functioning capacities (9). The second set of criteria specify age and potential recency of symptoms (12). By these latter criteria, an individual with a developmental disability or a substance use disorder could meet criteria for SMI. Across resources, APA indicates that diagnostic examples of SMI include schizophrenia, severe major depressive and bipolar disorders, and “a few other disorders” (11, 12). However, it does not provide a comprehensive list of conditions that meet SMI criteria or any assessment approaches or clear benchmarks that would indicate that an individual has SMI. Thus, the lack of consistency first delineated by Schinnar et al. (8) remains prevalent.
It is important to acknowledge that motivations for flexible terminology that can be applied across various behavioral health settings are understandable. As stated by Wing (14):
Although the concept of SMI is fuzzy, it has gained substantial official and professional acceptance because it is relevant to the reality of the case-mix decisions that have to be made, in particular those that involve crossing the invisible boundaries between primary and secondary services. The decisions usually turn on a judgment as to whether a patient’s needs can or cannot be fully met by treatment within the practice. There is as yet little research focused on making such judgments reliable.
Although Wing referenced severe mental illness in particular, the broader literature demonstrates that both severe mental illness and serious mental illness are nebulous diagnostic constructs.
Wing (14) observed in 2004 that research had yet to reveal which mental illnesses were consistently considered SMI. Until that point, various SMI criteria demonstrated sensitivity to which individuals could be classified as having SMI (15, 16). Since then, researchers have sought to resolve SMI’s “fuzziness.” In an Italian study, Parabiaghi et al. (17) concluded that SPMI terminology had clinical utility because it was associated with marked psychopathology and disability, high mental health service utilization, and unemployment. However, in their concept analysis of SPMI terminology, Zumstein and Riese (18) found that scholars use SPMI and SMI interchangeably, that the constructs lack definition, and that further clarification is needed prior to determining its utility. Of note, the authors opined that SPMI terminology should be retained if it was refined to be “context dependent” to reflect “local” conventions of health and health care.
Implications of “SMI” in Research, Practice, and Policy
Although the desire to use “SMI” as a catchall term is well intentioned and rooted in practicality, its inconsistency can have meaningful practice, research, and policy implications. Without a consistent definition, researchers who consider their study populations to have SMI have difficulty building a generalizable and evidence-based practice literature, and practitioners seeking evidence-based SMI practice may be limited in their ability to find a solid, reliable research base to inform their work. Further, the term “SMI” has been used to advocate for prioritization of services and benefits among individuals who have been determined to meet criteria (12). Without a consistent empirically based definition, the decision-making process becomes less clear regarding which populations to prioritize and under which circumstances.
Further, mental illness diagnostic labels are associated with self-stigma (i.e., the internalization of negative stereotypes) for individuals labeled as “mentally ill” and can act as a barrier to recovery (19). Theoretical models for the process by which negative social conceptualizations of mental illness become internalized have suggested that the act of psychiatric diagnosis is a key component; once an individual is given an official diagnostic label, preexisting conceptualizations of mental illness become personally relevant (20). This is not to say that psychiatric diagnosis is without benefits, because it may provide a shared language for navigating distressing experiences, a guide for treatment development and planning, and a starting point for service access (21). However, theorists have argued that such benefits also illustrate the overly functional nature of psychiatric diagnosis as a status-based tool (22).
A growing body of research has attended to the nature of psychiatric diagnostic categories themselves, including heterogeneity regarding classification of disorders (23) and negative consequences of continued use for heavily stigmatized diagnostic labels, such as schizophrenia (24). Importantly, this literature has solely focused on official diagnostic labels found in the DSM. “SMI” is often used as an umbrella term encompassing several diagnostic categories and implies a disorder of a severe and potentially unremitting nature. Considering the literature demonstrating an association between stigma and diagnostic psychiatric labels more generally, use of an additional negative specifier that notes a more “severe” nature of a psychiatric diagnosis may exacerbate attitudinal consequences of diagnostic labeling, including stigma and pessimism regarding treatment prognosis and recovery (25–29).
At the policy level, poor reliability of the term “SMI” can detract from programs that allot social services and government assistance for people with “SMI.” An individual who meets SMI criteria in one context may not meet it in another, which, at the person-level, could be disorienting and a hardship when that person seeks needed services. Hundreds of millions of U.S. federal dollars are allocated specifically for SMI programming each year (30), and without a strong evidence base to guide policy, the fiscal implications could be exceptional.
Objectives of this Systematic Review
Empirical investigation is lacking in regard to the reliability and utility of “SMI” as a psychological construct. Given the lack of standardization and potentially detrimental impact of using the “SMI” label in addition to more empirically established diagnostic terms, our objectives were to conduct a systematic review of its utility and incremental validity, understand how researchers use the term and examine consistencies and differences in meaning, and provide recommendations for research and practice. This systematic review was guided by two research questions: How is “SMI” operationally defined within the scientific literature? and What is the reliability and validity of “SMI” within the scientific literature?
Methods
Defining “Serious Mental Illness”
To review potential SMI search terms, we invited input from three research experts identified as having extensive publication records (more than 50 empirical papers) regarding mental illness treatment and policy and serving on relevant peer-reviewed editorial boards. In addition, we chose experts from varied geographic regions of the United States. Finalized terms included serious or severe mental illness, serious or severe and persistent mental illness, and serious or severe emotional disturbance. We also included non–person-centered versions (e.g., seriously or severely mentally ill). The term “chronic mental illness” was also considered as an SMI search term; however, this was regarded by experts as used primarily in the 1980s and 1990s and not relevant for a review of more recent literature and was ultimately discarded.
Systematic Review
The systematic review followed reporting guidelines as established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (31). In January 2020, the first author conducted an initial search (details are available in an online supplement to this article) of PsycINFO, PsycArticles, and PubMed for empirical papers containing SMI terminology published online first in peer-reviewed journals between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. After removing duplicates, the first and second authors initially screened studies for the following eligibility criteria: English language, peer reviewed, original empirical study, human participants, and “SMI” used to characterize the participant sample.
Three reviewers (C.C., L.L-A., B.M.) then conducted full-text reviews of the remaining articles, including additional eligibility review that may have been missed in the initial screen. Each article was assigned to two of the reviewers, and all three reviewers met weekly to discuss any coding discrepancies and further clarify coding guidelines if needed. Reviewers coded article characteristics as follows: the sample’s country or countries, whether the study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT), age group (<18, ≥18, or mixed-age sample), SMI terminology (e.g., serious mental illness and severe mental illness), whether and how researchers defined SMI, and the sample’s diagnostic makeup (coding variable levels are presented in accompanying tables). We did not collect additional demographic or outcome data, given that we were interested in study methodology rather than products. The meta-analytic coding process is iterative, meaning that a priori coding schemes may be amended as coders encounter new variables that warrant coding additions (32). The first author and the three reviewer-coders discussed new and amended codes as applicable. Weekly meetings were joined by the first author for the first 100 records; for the remainder, discrepancies with no immediate consensus among the three reviewers were resolved with input from the first author (33 ).
Interrater Reliability
Interrater reliability for coding was calculated by using Cohen’s kappa. Most kappas ranged from 0.70 to 1.00 across coding categories. However, several categories presented more difficulty than anticipated upon review, including whether a paper provided an operational definition for SMI (κ=0.65), provided diagnoses for participants considered to have SMI (κ=0.68), and reported participant age group (κ=0.51). Low interrater reliability for these categories can be partially explained by coding updates made mid-review to reflect the nature of included studies; for example, “participant age group” was updated to include an additional coding category accounting for a significant number of studies that included both adult and youth samples. However, whether studies provided an operational definition of SMI was an especially complicated category that required multiple rounds of discussion. This need for extended discussion was due to a tendency of many studies to provide diagnostic examples or allude to “SMI” without providing a formal operational definition used for study purposes; as a result, we created an additional code of “no operational definition, but diagnostic examples provided.” The first and second authors coded SMI operational definitions and sample diagnoses into additional distinct categories. Most Cohen’s kappas for these categories ranged from 0.77 to 1.00, except for two categories with low base rates (presence of other trauma-related disorders, κ=0.53; presence of eating disorders, κ=0.60). We met and resolved all coding discrepancies prior to analysis.
Results
A total of 788 papers met eligibility criteria and were coded for inclusion in descriptive content analysis. (The online supplement provides a flow diagram reporting total records screened and excluded across the stages of review.)
Qualitative Synthesis
Only univariate statistics (frequencies) were conducted for this systematic review, given that we were interested only in study and sample characteristics rather than study outcomes. Table 1 provides characteristics of studies included in analyses. Researchers conducted studies in approximately 47 countries, and approximately half the studies (47%) recruited participants from the United States. RCTs accounted for 23% of study designs. Participants were most often described as individuals with SMI (81% of studies), but studies also included SMI treatment providers (4%), family members of individuals with SMI (2%), and SMI caregivers (1%). Participants typically included adults (88% of studies), with youth-adolescent and combined youth-adolescent and adult samples comprising 4% of studies.
| Characteristic | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Country of studya | ||
| United States | 373 | 47 |
| United Kingdom | 73 | 9 |
| Australia | 53 | 7 |
| Netherlands | 42 | 5 |
| Canada | 39 | 5 |
| Denmark | 27 | 3 |
| Spain | 19 | 2 |
| China | 18 | 2 |
| Norway | 18 | 2 |
| Sweden | 18 | 2 |
| Other | 136 | 17 |
| Study design | ||
| Randomized controlled trial | 181 | 23 |
| Other | 607 | 77 |
| Participants | ||
| Individuals with SMI | 639 | 81 |
| SMI caregivers | 7 | 1 |
| SMI family members | 12 | 2 |
| SMI treatment providers | 35 | 4 |
| Other | 95 | 12 |
| Participant age | ||
| Adults (≥18) | 694 | 88 |
| Youths-adolescents (<18) | 20 | 3 |
| Youths-adolescents and adults | 31 | 4 |
| Not applicable | 43 | 6 |
| Authors defined “SMI” | ||
| No | 461 | 59 |
| No, but provided examples | 205 | 26 |
| Yes | 122 | 15 |
| SMI language used | ||
| Multiple (e.g., serious and severe) | 153 | 19 |
| Serious and persistent mental illness | 2 | <1 |
| Serious emotional disturbance | 11 | 1 |
| Serious mental illness | 288 | 37 |
| Severe and persistent mental illness | 12 | 2 |
| Severe mental illness | 322 | 41 |
| Did authors report SMI sample diagnoses? | ||
| No | 143 | 18 |
| Yes | 645 | 82 |
a
Several studies recruited participants from multiple countries. Given this overlap, counts are greater than the number of studies, and combined percentages total more than 100%.
Defining SMI.
In the bulk of studies, researchers did not operationalize “SMI” (85%). Only 15% of studies explicitly defined SMI, and 26% provided diagnostic examples of SMI without formal definitions (e.g., severe mental illness encompasses schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and bipolar affective disorder). When referencing the general SMI construct, most researchers referenced severe mental illness (41%) or serious mental illness (37%). Fewer studies used the terms severe and persistent mental illness (2%), serious emotional disturbance (1%), or serious and persistent mental illness (<1%). Several studies varied their language when referencing SMI, e.g., using severe mental illness and serious mental illness in the same report (19%).
Operational definitions.
Researchers most often (37% of studies) operationalized “SMI” as a handful of specific diagnoses (Table 2), and relatively few indicated that the construct of SMI could be as broad as “any” mental illness (4%). Authors described SMI as involving functional impairment in 9% of studies. Several studies (5%) referenced timing (e.g., duration or chronicity) or specific services received (2%) as central to the SMI concept. Less often, researchers used Global Assessment of Functioning scores or other psychometric measures (1% each) to identify prospective participants with SMI. Very few studies (1%) adopted a formal legal or organizational standard to define SMI.
| Defining characteristic | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Any mental health diagnosis/es | 31 | 4 |
| Specific mental health diagnosis or diagnoses | 289 | 37 |
| Functional impairment | 73 | 9 |
| Services received | 18 | 2 |
| Timing (duration or chronicity) | 39 | 5 |
| Global Assessment of Functioning score | 4 | 1 |
| Other psychometric measure score | 4 | 1 |
| Legal or organizational standard | 9 | 1 |
| Other | 17 | 2 |
a
Indicated Ns will not add up to 788 because not all studies provided SMI operational definitions.
Participant diagnoses.
Participants’ diagnoses were specified in 82% (N=645) of the 788 studies. Given diagnostic differences across youth and adult populations, we split diagnostic frequencies according to whether researchers referenced serious emotional disturbance (SED) or experiences of psychiatric disorders that cause substantial functional impairment, typically used in reference to conditions among youths (34), or whether they used an SMI variant, typically used in reference to adult conditions. We included diagnoses across terminology (Table 3).
| SMI (N=777) | SED (N=11) | Total (N=788) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diagnoses and symptoms | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder | 484 | 62 | 1 | 9 | 485 | 62 |
| Other psychosis or psychotic disorder | 259 | 33 | 1 | 9 | 260 | 33 |
| Bipolar disorder | 407 | 52 | 0 | — | 407 | 52 |
| Depression | 267 | 34 | 1 | 9 | 268 | 34 |
| Other mood disorders | 110 | 14 | 0 | — | 110 | 14 |
| Anxiety | 108 | 14 | 1 | 9 | 109 | 14 |
| Obsessive-compulsive disorder | 11 | 1 | 0 | — | 11 | 1 |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder | 69 | 9 | 0 | — | 69 | 9 |
| Other stress- or trauma-related disorders | 20 | 3 | 0 | — | 20 | 3 |
| Borderline personality disorder | 21 | 3 | 0 | — | 21 | 3 |
| Other personality disorders | 86 | 11 | 0 | — | 86 | 11 |
| Eating disorders | 6 | 1 | 0 | — | 6 | 1 |
| Substance use disorders | 84 | 11 | 0 | — | 84 | 11 |
| Autism spectrum disorder | 12 | 2 | 0 | — | 12 | 2 |
| Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder | 15 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 16 | 2 |
| Other neurodevelopmental disorders | 20 | 3 | 0 | — | 20 | 3 |
| Disruptive behavior disorders | 15 | 2 | 0 | — | 15 | 2 |
| Neurocognitive disorders | 18 | 2 | 0 | — | 18 | 2 |
| Other | 87 | 11 | 0 | — | 87 | 11 |
a
SMI, severe or serious mental illness; SED, serious or severe emotional disturbance.
In general, studies referencing SED included diagnoses or symptoms similar to those used in studies referencing SMI. Overall, the most prevalent diagnoses were schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (62%), bipolar disorder (52%), and depression (34%). In a third of studies (33%), participant samples consisted of individuals with other psychotic disorders or, more broadly, “psychosis” as a symptom. Researchers incorporated other mood disorders (14%), anxiety (14%), personality disorders (14%), substance use disorders (11%), and posttraumatic stress disorder (9%) with some regularity. All neurodevelopmental disorders, which included attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual disability, were included in 6% (N=48) of studies. Neurocognitive disorders, which included dementias, accounted for only 2% of diagnostic mentions. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (1%) and eating disorders (1%) were cited much less frequently. Of note, the only diagnosis more characteristic of SED research than of SMI research was ADHD, which was cited by 2% of SMI researchers and 9% of SED researchers. Further, no SED researchers cited disruptive behavior disorders among their diagnostic criteria.
Eleven percent of studies noted additional criteria that we collapsed into an “other” catchall category. Most often, we coded “other” when authors explicitly stated that “other” diagnoses fit their inclusion criteria. Three studies (<1%) included epilepsy. Only one study included “suicidality” among its criteria.
Risk of Bias
Traditionally, the utility of a meta-synthesis is largely dependent on the validity of its incorporated studies, and researchers assess risk of bias according to specified criteria (35). This project was unique, given that it sought to understand “back-end” methodological issues, specifically construct reliability and validity, rather than participant-focused study outcomes, as do most meta-syntheses. Thus, the typical study features that could increase risk of bias—including selective reporting of outcomes, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data (36)—were irrelevant here. Our goal was to identify the prevalence of specific SMI terminology and meaning. According to an authoritative systematic review source (37), “The procedures for publication bias should only be applied when the likelihood that a study will be published is affected by a finding of statistical significance.” It is unlikely that the validity of this synthesis would be affected by issues related to statistical significance. It is possible that loose and inconsistent operational definitions of SMI could reduce statistical power, thereby reducing the likelihood that a study produces significant results (38) and decreasing its chance of publication. However, the “file drawer” phenomenon under these circumstances would result in more, not fewer, inconsistent SMI operational definitions. Our findings already indicate that SMI is an unreliable construct. In the aforementioned methodological scenario, should unpublished research be revealed, it would likely only bolster the finding of this synthesis.
Discussion
Although the large number of studies (N=788) included in this review illustrates widespread prevalence and use of “SMI” throughout the empirical literature, our findings suggest that the term is often insufficiently and inconsistently defined, demonstrating poor reliability. Our review found substantial variability across the literature regarding how SMI is operationally defined, with 85% of studies failing to define the construct at all. Significant variability was noted regarding the criteria used to define SMI, including whether the SMI label was inferred depending on a diagnostic label or mental health services received (e.g., schizophrenia spectrum disorder or psychiatric hospitalization), whether functional impairment was required, whether a durational component was required, and whether SMI included specific symptoms or behaviors (e.g., psychosis or suicidality). Additional variability was noted regarding which, if any, diagnostic classifications fall under the SMI umbrella; this suggests that attempts to broadly distinguish individuals as having SMI or not having SMI based on diagnosis alone is without empirical basis. Overall, the lack of reliability for SMI definitions across the empirical literature suggests that the term has poor validity and questionable utility as an empirical or diagnostic construct.
What makes a mental illness “serious”? From our review, very few studies based this classification on any indicators of symptom severity or mortality; the most prevalent criteria among studies that provided an operational definition of SMI included specified mental health diagnoses and “functional impairment.” As discussed, the wide variability of diagnoses suggests that basing an SMI classification on one or several diagnostic categories is empirically questionable. The additional “functional impairment” criterion is similarly nonspecific, considering that clinically significant distress or functional impairment is required for any psychiatric diagnosis (9).
The inference of “SMI” on the basis of participants’ diagnoses, without further operationalization (e.g., schizophrenia is a severe mental illness), is also dubious. If individuals are considered as having “SMI” simply because of their diagnosis, this calls into question the utility of the term to provide additional clinically relevant information beyond that of a psychiatric diagnosis. Further, the diagnoses highlighted in the literature commonly included what researchers have proposed to be some of the most stigmatized, such as schizophrenia (39). For such individuals, being labeled with SMI in addition to their already stigmatized diagnoses may result in internalized stigmatization and label-avoidance behaviors (40).
In regard to practice and policy-related implications, if some individuals are indicated as having SMI, we must also consider the consequences for those individuals not given an SMI label—in other words, if we deem some mental illnesses “serious,” what does this say about the others? Specifically, SMI labeling may act to further stratify mental illnesses. Such processes can have social and material impacts on the care and support administered to people not labeled as having SMI. The SMI label may also be harmful because it may limit the help that those labeled “high functioning” (i.e., those without SMI) have access to and how seriously their experiences are taken by others (41). Importantly, “high-functioning” and “low-functioning” labels have also demonstrated questionable validity and utility for autistic communities (42). SMI labels may similarly divide and prioritize certain types of psychiatric experiences and “productivity levels.”
The inconsistencies of the SMI label are further illustrated by the fact that eating disorders are known to have the highest mortality rate of any diagnostic category (43) but appeared in a small minority (1%) of studies. Suicidality, currently the 10th leading cause of death in the United States (44) and the fourth leading cause for individuals ages 15–29 globally (45), was explicitly included among only one study’s eligibility criteria. The designation of specific diagnostic categories as SMI has led to targeted policy and treatment efforts worldwide (1–4); however, if such campaigns are directed at a diagnostic classification that is not reliable, valid, or empirically sound, any large-scale benefits of such programs will be unclear, rather sporadic, and potentially even iatrogenic.
Study limitations included a literature search limited to three databases; however, considering the vast literature found in the search and the emphasis on a specifically psychiatric-psychological construct, use of PsycInfo, PsycArticles, and PubMed can be considered sufficient for coverage of the SMI literature. This study was also limited by its inclusion of articles for which an English-language version was available; future research may evaluate whether the construct of SMI remains consistent across languages.
Conclusions
Overall, the findings from this review have relevance for use of the terms “serious mental illness” or “severe mental illness” across research, practice, training, and policy settings. First, findings highlight a critical need for establishing clear operational definitions of SMI in the empirical literature. This is indeed a tall order, because variations in the definition of SMI are clearly prevalent, with widespread use of varying definitions. However, the psychiatric literature must strive for precision regarding the populations described in order to promote scientifically sound research and empirically based practice. We encourage professional work groups to generate possible solutions to resolve ambiguity in the term “SMI.” In the absence of a collective term, we encourage researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to refer to specific diagnostic categories, impairment “benchmarks,” or some other agreed-upon approach to standardizing the meaning of SMI. Second, potential negative and stigmatizing consequences of use of “SMI” in practice settings should be evaluated further, considering the findings of this review. Additional research should evaluate the reliability of the term “SMI” in clinical practice, because use of a term with poor reliability suggests that two providers may use SMI in their practice with different meanings. Finally, training competencies and policies targeting SMI should include clear operational definitions and reference empirically validated classifications of disorders for which treatments and resources can be tailored and directed.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Philip Yanos, Ph.D., Patrick Corrigan, Psy.D., and Stephen Hinshaw, Ph.D., for their expertise and suggestions regarding systematic review of the SMI literature.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.202100661.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 92.46 KB
References
1.
Dieterich M, Irving CB, Bergman H, et al : Intensive case management for severe mental illness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017 ; 1 : CD007906
2.
Modini M, Tan L, Brinchmann B, et al : Supported employment for people with severe mental illness: systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence. Br J Psychiatry 2016 ; 209 : 14 – 22
3.
Mental Disorders. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2019. www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-disorders
4.
Sánchez J, Rosenthal DA, Tansey TN, et al : Predicting quality of life in individuals with serious mental illness: expanding the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Rehabil Psychol 2016 ; 61 : 19 – 31
5.
Behind the term: serious mental illness. Pub no 283-12-3702. Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, 2016. www.hsdl.org/?view&did=801613
6.
Pescosolido BA, Martin JK, Long S, et al : A disease like any other”? A decade of change in public reactions to schizophrenia, depression, and alcohol dependence. Am J Psychiatry 2010 ; 167 : 1321 – 1330
7.
Cechnicki A, Angermeyer MC, Bielańska A : Anticipated and experienced stigma among people with schizophrenia: its nature and correlates. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2011 ; 46 : 643 – 650
8.
Schinnar AP, Rothbard AB, Kanter R, et al : An empirical literature review of definitions of severe and persistent mental illness. Am J Psychiatry 1990 ; 147 : 1602 – 1608
9.
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association, 2013
10.
ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2004
11.
What Is Mental Illness? Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2018. www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness
12.
What Is Serious Mental Illness? Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, SMI Adviser, 2021. smiadviser.org/about/serious-mental-illness
13.
Mental Illness. Bethesda, MD, National Institute of Mental Health, 2022. www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/mental-illness
14.
Wing JK : Severe mental illness ; in Health Care Needs Assessment: The Epidemiologically Based Needs Assessment Reviews, Vol 1. Edited by Stevens A, Raftery J, Simpson S. Bourne End, United Kingdom, Radcliffe Publishing, 2004
15.
Narrow WE, Regier DA, Goodman SH, et al : A comparison of federal definitions of severe mental illness among children and adolescents in four communities. Psychiatr Serv 1998 ; 49 : 1601 – 1608
16.
Ruggeri M, Leese M, Thornicroft G, et al : Definition and prevalence of severe and persistent mental illness. Br J Psychiatry 2000 ; 177 : 149 – 155
17.
Parabiaghi A, Bonetto C, Ruggeri M, et al : Severe and persistent mental illness: a useful definition for prioritizing community-based mental health service interventions. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2006 ; 41 : 457 – 463
18.
Zumstein N, Riese F : Defining severe and persistent mental illness—a pragmatic utility concept analysis. Front Psychiatry 2020 ; 11 : 648
19.
Oexle N, Müller M, Kawohl W, et al : Self-stigma as a barrier to recovery: a longitudinal study. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 2018 ; 268 : 209 – 212
20.
Link BG, Cullen FT, Struening EL, et al : A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: an empirical assessment. Am Soc Rev 1989 ; 54 : 400 – 423
21.
Craddock N, Mynors-Wallis L : Psychiatric diagnosis: impersonal, imperfect, and important. Br J Psychiatry 2014 ; 204 : 93 – 95
22.
Szmukler G : When psychiatric diagnosis becomes an overworked tool. J Med Ethics 2014 ; 40 : 517 – 520
23.
Allsopp K, Read J, Corcoran R, et al : Heterogeneity in psychiatric diagnostic classification. Psychiatry Res 2019 ; 279 : 15 – 22
24.
Lasalvia A, Penta E, Sartorius N, et al : Should the label “schizophrenia” be abandoned? Schizophr Res 2015 ; 162 : 276 – 284
25.
Björkman T, Svensson B, Lundberg B : Experiences of stigma among people with severe mental illness. Reliability, acceptability and construct validity of the Swedish versions of two stigma scales measuring devaluation/discrimination and rejection experiences. Nord J Psychiatry 2007 ; 61 : 332 – 338
26.
Hansson L, Jormfeldt H, Svedberg P, et al : Mental health professionals’ attitudes towards people with mental illness: do they differ from attitudes held by people with mental illness? Int J Soc Psychiatry 2013 ; 59 : 48 – 54
27.
Yang LH, Wonpat-Borja AJ, Opler MG, et al : Potential stigma associated with inclusion of the psychosis risk syndrome in the DSM-V: an empirical question. Schizophr Res 2010 ; 120 : 42 – 48
28.
Perkins AP, Ridler J, Browes D, et al : Experiencing mental health diagnosis: a systematic review of service user, clinician, and carer perspectives across clinical settings. Lancet Psychiatry 2018 ; 5 : 747 – 764
29.
Kravetz S, Faust M, David M : Accepting the mental illness label, perceived control over the illness, and quality of life. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2000 ; 23 : 323 – 332
30.
SAMHSA FY 2022 Budget in Brief. Rockville, MD, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2021. www.samhsa.gov/about-us/budget
31.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al : Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009 ; 339 : b2535
32.
Lipsey MW, Wilson DB : Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE, 2001
33.
MacPhail C, Khoza N, Abler L, et al : Process guidelines for establishing intercoder reliability in qualitative studies. Qual Res 2016 ; 16 : 198 – 212
34.
Williams NJ, Scott L, Aarons GA : Prevalence of serious emotional disturbance among US children: a meta-analysis. Psychiatr Serv 2018 ; 69 : 32 – 40
35.
Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein, M (eds): Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK, Wiley, 2006
36.
Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK, Wiley, 2019
37.
Borenstein M : Common Mistakes in Meta-Analysis and How to Avoid Them. Englewood, NJ, Biostat Inc, 2019
38.
Cook TD, Campbell DT, Shadish W : Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2002
39.
Groot C, Hardingham K : Stigma about schizophrenia: the effects of diagnostic labels, symptoms, and illness phase. Schizophr Bull 2018 ; 44 : S200
40.
Corrigan PW : How clinical diagnosis might exacerbate the stigma of mental illness. Soc Work 2007 ; 52 : 31 – 39
41.
Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H : The stereotype of schizophrenia and its impact on discrimination against people with schizophrenia: results from a representative survey in Germany. Schizophr Bull 2004 ; 30 : 1049 – 1061
42.
Alvares GA, Bebbington K, Cleary D, et al : The misnomer of “high functioning autism”: intelligence is an imprecise predictor of functional abilities at diagnosis. Autism 2019 ; 24 : 221 – 232
43.
Arcelus J, Mitchell AJ, Wales J, et al : Mortality rates in patients with anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders: a meta-analysis of 36 studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011 ; 68 : 724 – 731
44.
Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). Atlanta, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021. www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars
45.
Suicide Worldwide in 2019: Global Health Estimates. Pub no 9789240026643. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2021. www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240026643
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 18 November 2021
Revision received: 20 December 2021
Accepted: 15 March 2022
Published online: 27 July 2022
Published in print: November 01, 2022
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).