Suchergebnisse

Background: Substance use disorders (SUDs) are among the most severely stigmatised conditions; however, little is known about the nature of these stigmatising attitudes. Aims: To assess and compare stigmatising attitudes towards persons with SUDs among different stakeholders: general public, general practitioners (GPs), mental health and addiction specialists, and clients in treatment for substance abuse. Methods: Cross-sectional study ( N  = 3,326) in which stereotypical beliefs, attribution beliefs (e.g. perceptions about controllability and responsibility for having an addiction), social distance and expectations about rehabilitation opportunities for individuals with substance use disorders were assessed and compared between stakeholders. Results: Individuals with substance use disorders elicited great social distance across all stakeholders. Stereotypical beliefs were not different between stakeholders, whereas attribution beliefs were more diverse. Considering social distance and expectations about rehabilitation opportunities, the general public was most pessimistic, followed by GPs, mental health and addiction specialists, and clients. Stereotypical and attribution beliefs, as well as age, gender and socially desirable answering, were not associated with social distance across all stakeholders. Conclusion: The general public and GPs expressed more social distance and were more negative in their expectations about rehabilitation opportunities, compared to mental health and addiction specialists and clients. Although stigmatising attitudes were prevalent across all groups, no striking differences were found between stakeholders.

Background and aims: Interferential care differs from the current community-based care programs in that it targets a larger, heterogeneous group and combines brokerage and full service elements in a multi-organizational care team. The team provides all the services itself, but with the aim to prepare clients within a few months for referral to regular (ambulant) healthcare services. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of interferential care. Methods: In a multisite, pretest–posttest design, 523 patients of three interferential care teams were followed. Quality of life, problem severity, problems with referral and engagement were assessed at baseline, at referral and again after 6 months. Analyses were performed using linear mixed modeling. Results: Interferential care showed moderate to strong effects on quality of life and problem severity. These effects persisted (quality of life) or further improved (problem severity) until follow-up 6 months after referral to regular services. There were also small effects on both engagement and problems with referral. Conclusion: Interferential care offers significant improvements in quality of life and problem severity in persons who have severe problems on several life areas and who are currently not reached by healthcare services. It is a promising community-based care program for healthcare systems in which regular care already contains many elements of home-based practice.