Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Back to table of contents
Reviews & OverviewsFull Access

Reliability of the Term “Serious Mental Illness”: A Systematic Review

Published Online:27 Jul 2022https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202100661

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.