Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"For more than half a century Thomas Szasz has devoted much of his career to a radical critique of psychiatry. His latest work, Psychiatry: The Science of Lies, is a culmination of his life's work: to portray the integral role of deception in the history and practice of psychiatry.\" \"Szasz argues that the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness stands in the same relationship to the diagnosis and treatment of bodily illness that the forgery of a painting does to the original masterpiece. Art historians and the legal system seek to distinguish forgeries from originals. Those concerned with medicine, on the other hand - physicians, patients, politicians, health insurance providers, and legal professionals - take the opposite stance when faced with the challenge of distinguishing everyday problems in living from bodily diseases, systematically authenticating nondiseases as diseases. The boundary between disease and nondisease - genuine and imitation, truth and falsehood - thus becomes arbitrary and uncertain.\"--Jacket.

Background Involving mental health service users in planning and reviewing their care can help personalised care focused on recovery, with the aim of developing goals specific to the individual and designed to maximise achievements and social integration. We aimed to ascertain the views of service users, carers and staff in acute inpatient wards on factors that facilitated or acted as barriers to collaborative, recovery-focused care. Methods A cross-national comparative mixed-methods study involving 19 mental health wards in six service provider sites in England and Wales. This included a survey using established standardised measures of service users ( n  = 301) and staff ( n  = 290) and embedded case studies involving interviews with staff, service users and carers ( n  = 76). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed within and across sites using descriptive and inferential statistics, and framework method. Results For service users, when recovery-oriented focus was high, the quality of care was rated highly, as was the quality of therapeutic relationships. For staff, there was a moderate correlation between recovery orientation and quality of therapeutic relationships, with considerable variability. Staff members rated the quality of therapeutic relationships higher than service users did. Staff accounts of routine collaboration contrasted with a more mixed picture in service user accounts. Definitions and understandings of recovery varied, as did views of hospital care in promoting recovery. Managing risk was a central issue for staff, and service users were aware of measures taken to keep them safe, although their involvement in discussions was less apparent. Conclusions There is positive practice within acute inpatient wards, with evidence of commitment to safe, respectful, compassionate care. Recovery ideas were evident but there remained ambivalence on their relevance to inpatient care. Service users were aware of efforts taken to keep them safe, but despite measures described by staff, they did not feel routinely involved in care planning or risk management decisions. Research on increasing therapeutic contact time, shared decision making in risk assessment and using recovery focused tools could further promote personalised and recovery-focused care planning. This paper arises from a larger study published by National Institute for Health Research (Simpson A, et al, Health Serv Deliv Res 5(26), 2017).

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents two urgent health problems: the illness caused by the virus itself and the anxiety, panic and psychological problems associated with the pandemic. Both problems present substantial challenges for our patients, their families, our multidisciplinary teams and our psychiatrist colleagues. We need good psychiatry, now more than ever.

Background The mental health treatment gap—the difference between those with mental health need and those who receive treatment—is high in low- and middle-income countries. Task-shifting has been used to address the shortage of mental health professionals, with a growing body of research demonstrating the effectiveness of mental health interventions delivered through task-shifting. However, very little research has focused on how to embed, support, and sustain task-shifting in government-funded systems with potential for scale up. The goal of the Building and Sustaining Interventions for Children (BASIC) study is to examine implementation policies and practices that predict adoption, fidelity, and sustainment of a mental health intervention in the education sector via teacher delivery and the health sector via community health volunteer delivery. Methods BASIC is a Hybrid Type II Implementation-Effectiveness trial. The study design is a stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial involving 7 sequences of 40 schools and 40 communities surrounding the schools. Enrollment consists of 120 teachers, 120 community health volunteers, up to 80 site leaders, and up to 1280 youth and one of their primary guardians. The evidence-based mental health intervention is a locally adapted version of Trauma-focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, called Pamoja Tunaweza. Lay counselors are trained and supervised in Pamoja Tunaweza by local trainers who are experienced in delivering the intervention and who participated in a Train-the-Trainer model of skills transfer. After the first sequence completes implementation, in-depth interviews are conducted with initial implementing sites’ counselors and leaders. Findings are used to inform delivery of implementation facilitation for subsequent sequences’ sites. We use a mixed methods approach including qualitative comparative analysis to identify necessary and sufficient implementation policies and practices that predict 3 implementation outcomes of interest: adoption, fidelity, and sustainment. We also examine child mental health outcomes and cost of the intervention in both the education and health sectors. Discussion The BASIC study will provide knowledge about how implementation of task-shifted mental health care can be supported in government systems that already serve children and adolescents. Knowledge about implementation policies and practices from BASIC can advance the science of implementation in low-resource contexts. Trial registration Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03243396. Registered 9th August 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03243396

Background Transition from distinct Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMHS) to Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS) is beset with multitude of problems affecting continuity of care for young people with mental health needs. Transition-related discontinuity of care is a major health, socioeconomic and societal challenge globally. The overall aim of the Managing the Link and Strengthening Transition from Child to Adult Mental Health Care in Europe (MILESTONE) project (2014–19) is to improve transition from CAMHS to AMHS in diverse healthcare settings across Europe. MILESTONE focuses on current service provision in Europe, new transition-related measures, long term outcomes of young people leaving CAMHS, improving transitional care through ‘managed transition’, ethics of transitioning and the training of health care professionals. Methods Data will be collected via systematic literature reviews, pan-European surveys, and focus groups with service providers, users and carers, and members of youth advocacy and mental health advocacy groups. A prospective cohort study will be conducted with a nested cluster randomised controlled trial in eight European Union (EU) countries (Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, UK) involving over 1000 CAMHS users, their carers, and clinicians. Discussion Improving transitional care can facilitate not only recovery but also mental health promotion and mental illness prevention for young people. MILESTONE will provide evidence of the organisational structures and processes influencing transition at the service interface across differing healthcare models in Europe and longitudinal outcomes for young people leaving CAMHS, solutions for improving transitional care in a cost-effective manner, training modules for clinicians, and commissioning and policy guidelines for service providers and policy makers. Trial registration “MILESTONE study” registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN83240263 Registered 23 July 2015; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03013595 Registered 6 January 2017.

In low-income countries, care for people with mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders is largely absent, especially in rural settings. To increase treatment coverage, integration of mental health services into community and primary healthcare settings is recommended. While this strategy is being rolled out globally, rigorous evaluation of outcomes at each stage of the service delivery pathway from detection to treatment initiation to individual outcomes of care has been missing. A combination of methods were employed to evaluate the impact of a district mental healthcare plan for depression, psychosis, alcohol use disorder (AUD), and epilepsy as part of the Programme for Improving Mental Health Care (PRIME) in Chitwan District, Nepal. We evaluated 4 components of the service delivery pathway: (1) contact coverage of primary care mental health services, evaluated through a community study (N = 3,482 combined for all waves of community surveys) and through service utilisation data (N = 727); (2) detection of mental illness among participants presenting in primary care facilities, evaluated through a facility study (N = 3,627 combined for all waves of facility surveys); (3) initiation of minimally adequate treatment after diagnosis, evaluated through the same facility study; and (4) treatment outcomes of patients receiving primary-care-based mental health services, evaluated through cohort studies (total N = 449 depression, N = 137; AUD, N = 175; psychosis, N = 95; epilepsy, N = 42). The lack of structured diagnostic assessments (instead of screening tools), the relatively small sample size for some study components, and the uncontrolled nature of the study are among the limitations to be noted. All data collection took place between 15 January 2013 and 15 February 2017. Contact coverage increased 7.5% for AUD (from 0% at baseline), 12.2% for depression (from 0%), 11.7% for epilepsy (from 1.3%), and 50.2% for psychosis (from 3.2%) when using service utilisation data over 12 months; community survey results did not reveal significant changes over time. Health worker detection of depression increased by 15.7% (from 8.9% to 24.6%) 6 months after training, and 10.3% (from 8.9% to 19.2%) 24 months after training; for AUD the increase was 58.9% (from 1.1% to 60.0%) and 11.0% (from 1.1% to 12.1%) for 6 months and 24 months, respectively. Provision of minimally adequate treatment subsequent to diagnosis for depression was 93.9% at 6 months and 66.7% at 24 months; for AUD these values were 95.1% and 75.0%, respectively. Changes in treatment outcomes demonstrated small to moderate effect sizes (9.7-point reduction [d = 0.34] in AUD symptoms, 6.4-point reduction [d = 0.43] in psychosis symptoms, 7.2-point reduction [d = 0.58] in depression symptoms) at 12 months post-treatment. These combined results make a promising case for the feasibility and impact of community- and primary-care-based services delivered through an integrated district mental healthcare plan in reducing the treatment gap and increasing effective coverage for MNS disorders. While the integrated mental healthcare approach does lead to apparent benefits in most of the outcome metrics, there are still significant areas that require further attention (e.g., no change in community-level contact coverage, attrition in AUD detection rates over time, and relatively low detection rates for depression).