Search results

Background: Immigrants in Europe appear to be at higher risk of psychiatric coercive interventions. Involuntary psychiatric hospitalization poses significant ethical and clinical challenges. Nonetheless, reasons for migration and other risk factors for involuntary treatment were rarely addressed in previous studies. The aims of this study are to clarify whether immigrant patients with acute mental disorders are at higher risk to be involuntarily admitted to hospital and to explore clinical and migratory factors associated with involuntary treatment. Methods: In this cross-sectional matched sample study, we compared the rates of involuntary treatment in a sample of first-generation immigrants admitted in a Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit of a large metropolitan academic hospital to their age-, gender-, and psychiatric diagnosis-matched native counterparts. Clinical, sociodemographic, and migratory variables were collected. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-expanded (BPRS-E) and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale were administered. McNemar test was used for paired categorical variables and a binary logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 234 patients were included in the analysis. Involuntary treatment rates were significantly higher in immigrants as compared to their matched natives (32% vs. 24% respectively; p < .001). Among immigrants, involuntary hospitalization was found to be more frequent in those patients whose length of stay in Italy was less than 2 years (OR = 4.2, 95% CI [1.4–12.7]). Conclusion: Recently arrived immigrants appear to be at higher risk of involuntary admission. Since coercive interventions can be traumatic and negatively affect outcomes, strategies to prevent this phenomenon are needed.

Background and Aims: Immigrants in Europe appear at higher risk of psychiatric coercive interventions. No studies have investigated this issue in Italy. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of physical restraint, compulsory admission and other treatment characteristics differ in immigrated and Italian-born patients admitted to a psychiatric intensive care unit. Methods: One hundred first-generation immigrant patients were compared to 100 age-, gender- and diagnosis-matched Italian-born patients. Subjects were diagnosed according to DSM-IV-TR and rated on the Clinical Global Impression – Severity Scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning. Clinical data and treatment characteristics were collected. Results: Immigrant patients were more likely to be physically restrained as compared to Italian-born patients (11% vs 3%; χ 2 = 4.92; p = 0.027; RR = 3.67; 95% CI = 1.05–12.7). No differences in the proportion of involuntary treatment were found. Immigrant patients did not receive higher doses of antipsychotics or benzodiazepines, but they had a longer stay in the hospital. Conclusions: The higher rate of physical restraint among migrants may reflect cultural, ethnic and language differences leading to communication problems between immigrant patients and mental health professionals. Since coercive interventions can be harmful, specific strategies to prevent this phenomenon in immigrants are needed.

Background: In asylum seekers and refugees, the frequency of mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, is higher than the general population, but there is a lack of data on risk factors for the development of mental disorders in this population. Aim: This study investigated the risk factors for mental disorder development in a large group of asylum seekers and refugees resettled in high- and middle-income settings. Methods: Participant-level data from two randomized prevention studies involving asylum seekers and refugees resettled in Western European countries and in Turkey were pooled. The two studies randomized participants with psychological distress, but without a diagnosis of mental disorder, to the Self-Help Plus psychological intervention or enhanced care as usual. At baseline, exposure to potentially traumatic events was measured using the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire-part I, while psychological distress and depressive symptoms were assessed with the General Health Questionnaire and the Patient Health Questionnaire. After 3 and 6 months of follow-up, the proportion of participants who developed a mental disorder was calculated using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. Results: A total of 1,101 participants were included in the analysis. At 3- and 6-month follow-up the observed frequency of mental disorders was 13.51% (115/851) and 24.30% (207/852), respectively, while the frequency estimates after missing data imputation were 13.95% and 23.78%, respectively. After controlling for confounders, logistic regression analysis showed that participants with a lower education level ( p = .034), a shorter duration of journey ( p = .057) and arriving from countries with war-related contexts ( p = .017), were more at risk of developing mental disorders. Psychological distress ( p = .004), depression ( p = .001) and exposure to potentially traumatic events ( p = .020) were predictors of mental disorder development. Conclusions: This study identified several risk factors for the development of mental disorders in asylum seekers and refugees, some of which may be the target of risk reduction policies. The identification of asylum seekers and refugees at increased risk of mental disorders should guide the implementation of focused preventative psychological interventions.