Suchergebnisse

Background: Understanding the concept of recovery in severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia from the social and cultural aspects is important as it will help in developing models of recovery and appropriate interventions. Client and caregiver perspectives on recovery play a significant role in shaping these models and interventions. Hence, the aim of this study was to understand how clients with schizophrenia and their caregivers perceive recovery and to examine the differences between male and female clients with schizophrenia. Materials and methods: A total of 100 clients with schizophrenia and 80 caregivers of clients with schizophrenia were included in the study after written informed consent. A semi-structured proforma was used to collect the sociodemographic profile and illness variables. A questionnaire was developed to assess the indicators of recovery from mental illness and was administered to study participants. Descriptive statistics including frequency and percentages were used along with the chi-square test for analysis. Results: The most common indicators of recovery for the clients with schizophrenia were absence of symptoms (88%), no relapse (70%) and going back to work (70%), while for the caregivers were absence of symptoms (100%), becoming independent (92.5%) and no relapse (91%). Indicators of recovery were similar between male and female clients with schizophrenia except for the need to stop medication as an indicator of recovery observed significantly more in females ( p = .006). Most clients used internal validation of indicators to assess their recovery (79%). Conclusion: Results indicate that clients and caregivers from India perceive recovery as being symptom free, able to go back to work and being independent. Clients with schizophrenia use internal validation to assess recovery. Gender does not play a role in the perceptions toward recovery in schizophrenia. These results will help in developing models of recovery for severe mental illness in Indian context leading to tailored interventions.

Background: The psychiatric advance statement (PAS) is a document that outlines the preferences of patients in their future treatment. Formulating and writing a PAS has not been studied in low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries. Aim: To study the feasibility of writing a PAS in an Indian population. Methods: Patients' diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective psychosis attending the outpatient clinic at the Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF) or its community centres in 2011 were screened using the study criteria. After obtaining informed consent, stratified sampling was used to derive the final sample. Results: Most patients consented to participate in the study (122/123 patients). Following interviews with research assistants, 93 patients were assessed to have the capacity to write a PAS and 92 completed one. The patients were mostly able to complete the PAS on their own. Major themes included choice of treatment facility, type of treatment and nomination of others to take decisions on their behalf. A third of the sample were either from rural areas or not exclusively urban. At the time of the study, about 45% of the sample was rated as being symptomatic. Conclusion: Psychotic patients with a long-term illness, a third of them from non-urban areas, were able to write a valid PAS.

Objectives: Views on who bears how much responsibility for supporting individuals with mental health problems may vary across stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians) and cultures. Perceptions about responsibility may influence the extent to which stakeholders get involved in treatment. Our objective was to report on the development, psychometric properties and usability of a first-ever tool of this construct. Methods: We created a visual weighting disk called 'ShareDisk', measuring perceived extent of responsibility for supporting persons with mental health problems. It was administered (twice, 2 weeks apart) to patients, family members and clinicians in Chennai, India ( N = 30, 30 and 15, respectively) and Montreal, Canada ( N = 30, 32 and 15, respectively). Feedback regarding its usability was also collected. Results: The English, French and Tamil versions of the ShareDisk demonstrated high test–retest reliability ( rs = .69–.98) and were deemed easy to understand and use. Conclusion: The ShareDisk is a promising measure of a hitherto unmeasured construct that is easily deployable in settings varying in language and literacy levels. Its clinical utility lies in clarifying stakeholder roles. It can help researchers investigate how stakeholders' roles are perceived and how these perceptions may be shaped by and shape the organization and experience of healthcare across settings.

Background: Data from high-income countries (HICs) show a high risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) in first-episode psychosis (FEP). It is unknown, however, whether rates and associated factors differ in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Aims: We therefore aimed to compare the 2-year course of STBs and associated factors in persons with FEP treated in two similarly structured early intervention services in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada. Method: To ensure fit to the data that included persons without STBs and with varying STBs' severity, a hurdle model was conducted by site, including known predictors of STBs. The 2-year evolution of STBs was compared by site with mixed-effects ordered logistic regression. Results: The study included 333 FEP patients (168 in Chennai, 165 in Montreal). A significant decrease in STBs was observed at both sites (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.84, 0.90]), with the greatest decline in the first 2 months of follow-up. Although three Chennai women died by suicide in the first 4 months (none in Montreal), Chennai patients had a lower risk of STBs over follow-up (OR = 0.44; 95% CI [0.23, 0.81]). Some factors (depression, history of suicide attempts) were consistently associated with STBs across contexts, while others (gender, history of suicidal ideation, relationship status) were associated at only one of the two sites. Conclusions: This is the first study to compare STBs in FEP between two distinct geo-sociocultural contexts (an HIC and an LMIC). At both sites, STBs reduced after treatment initiation, suggesting that early intervention reduces STBs across contexts. At both sites, for some patients, STBs persisted or first appeared during follow-up, indicating need for suicide prevention throughout follow-up. Our study demonstrates contextual variations in rates and factors associated with STBs. This has implications for tailoring suicide prevention and makes the case for more research on STBs in FEP in diverse contexts.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with mental health problems have many insufficiently met support needs. Across sociocultural contexts, various parties (e.g., governments, families, persons with mental health problems) assume responsibility for meeting these needs. However, key stakeholders' opinions of the relative responsibilities of these parties for meeting support needs remain largely unexplored. This is a critical knowledge gap, as these perceptions may influence policy and caregiving decisions. METHODS: Patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 250), their family members (n = 228), and clinicians (n = 50) at two early intervention services in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada were asked how much responsibility they thought the government versus persons with mental health problems; the government versus families; and families versus persons with mental health problems should bear for meeting seven support needs of persons with mental health problems (e.g., housing; help covering costs of substance use treatment; etc.). Two-way analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences in ratings of responsibility between sites (Chennai, Montreal); raters (patients, families, clinicians); and support needs. RESULTS: Across sites and raters, governments were held most responsible for meeting each support need and all needs together. Montreal raters assigned more responsibility to the government than did Chennai raters. Compared to those in Montreal, Chennai raters assigned more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems, except for the costs of substance use treatment. Family raters across sites assigned more responsibility to governments than did patient raters, and more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems than did patient and clinician raters. At both sites, governments were assigned less responsibility for addressing housing- and school/work reintegration-related needs compared to other needs. In Chennai, the government was seen as most responsible ...

BACKGROUND: Individuals with mental health problems have multiple, often inadequately met needs. Responsibility for meeting these needs frequently falls to patients, their families/caregivers, and governments. Little is known about stakeholders' views of who should be responsible for these needs and there are no measures to assess this construct. This study's objectives were to present the newly designed Whose Responsibility Scale (WRS), which assesses how stakeholders apportion responsibility to persons with mental health problems, their families, and the government for addressing various needs of persons with mental health problems, and to report its psychometric properties. METHODS: The 22-item WRS asks respondents to assign relative responsibility to the government versus persons with mental health problems, government versus families, and families versus persons with mental health problems for seven support needs. The items were modelled on a World Values Survey item comparing the government's and people's responsibility for ensuring that everyone is provided for. We administered English, Tamil, and French versions to 57 patients, 60 family members, and 27 clinicians at two early psychosis programs in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada, evaluating test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and ease of use. Internal consistency estimates were also calculated for confirmatory purposes with the larger samples from the main comparative study. RESULTS: Test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) generally ranged from excellent to fair across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians), settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). In the standardization and larger confirmatory samples, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alphas) ranged from acceptable to excellent. The WRS scored average on ease of comprehension and completion. Scores were spread across the 1–10 range, suggesting that the scale captured variations in views on how responsibility ...