Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
517,446
result(s) for
"Mental health care"
Sort by:
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Mental Health and Mental Health Care During The COVID-19 Pandemic
During the pandemic, the overall mental health of the US population declined. Given higher rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths experienced by communities of color along with greater exposure to pandemic-related stressors (e.g., unemployment, food insecurity), we expect that the decline in mental health during the pandemic was more pronounced among Black, Hispanic, and Asian adults, with these groups also having less access to mental health services. We examine two nationally representative US surveys: the 2019 National Household Interview Survey (NHIS;
N
= 30,368) and the 2020–2021 Household Pulse Survey (HPS;
N
= 1,677,238). We find mental health of Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents worsened relative to White respondents during the pandemic, with significant increases in depression and anxiety among racialized minorities compared to Whites. There is also evidence of especially high mental health burden for Black adults around the murder of George Floyd by police and for Asian adults around the murder of six Asian women in Atlanta. White respondents are most likely to receive professional mental health care before and during the pandemic, and Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents demonstrate higher levels of unmet mental health care needs during the pandemic than White respondents. Our results indicate that within the current environment, White adults are at a large and systemic advantage buffering them from unexpected crises—like the COVID-19 pandemic. Without targeted interventions, the long-term social consequences of the pandemic and other co-occurring events (e.g., death of Black and Hispanic people by police) will likely include widening mental health disparities between racial/ethnic groups.
Journal Article
Interprofessional care and mental health : a discursive exploration of team meeting practices
This volume utilises conversation analysis (CA) and discursive psychology (DP) methodologies to examine the internal workings of multi-disciplinary teams which are concerned with the care, treatment and diagnosis of clients with complex mental health needs. Bringing together practitioners, service users and researchers who were part of the MDTsInAction research project, the authors offer a unique and systematic investigation into the ways members of multidisciplinary teams collaboratively manage their shared goals. A particular focus is on the language used in team meetings, and how examination of meeting talk can help us better understand the practice of inter-professional working. The authors also describe how a range of institutional barriers and concerns needed to be tackled in implementing the study in a healthcare setting.
Book
Healthcare ecosystems research in mental health: a scoping review of methods to describe the context of local care delivery
Background
Evidence from the context of local health ecosystems is highly relevant for research and policymaking to understand geographical variations in outcomes of health care delivery. In mental health systems, the analysis of context presents particular challenges related to their complexity and to methodological difficulties. Method guidelines and standard recommendations for conducting context analysis of local mental health care are urgently needed. This scoping study reviews current methods of context analysis in mental health systems to establish the parameters of research activity examining availability and capacity of care at the local level, and to identify any gaps in the literature.
Methods
A scoping review based on a systematic search of key databases was conducted for the period 2005–2016. A systems dynamics/complexity approach was adopted, using a modified version of Tansella and Thornicroft’s matrix model of mental health care as the conceptual framework for our analysis.
Results
The lack of a specific terminology in the area meant that from 10,911 titles identified at the initial search, only 46 papers met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 had serious methodological limitations. Fifteen papers did not use any kind of formal framework, and five of those did not describe their method. Units of analysis varied widely and across different levels of the system. Six instruments to describe service availability and capacity were identified, of which three had been psychometrically validated. A limitation was the exclusion of grey literature from the review. However, the imprecise nature of the terminology, and high number of initial results, makes the inclusion of grey literature not feasible.
Conclusion
We identified that, in spite of its relevance, context studies in mental health services is a very limited research area. Few validated instruments are available. Methodological limitations in many papers mean that the particular challenges of mental health systems research such as system complexity, data availability and terminological variability are generally poorly addressed, presenting a barrier to valid system comparison. The modified Thornicroft and Tansella matrix and related ecological production of care model provide the main model for research within the area of health care ecosystems.
Journal Article
Collaborative care for mental health: a qualitative study of the experiences of patients and health professionals
Background
Health policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment.
Methods
We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (
n
= 7), CMHC specialists (
n
= 6) and patients (
n
= 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis.
Results
Participants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First,
co-location
made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients’ access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5–10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second,
having experienced mental health specialists in the team
and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable.
Conclusions
Participants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov
identifier: NCT03624829.
Journal Article
Recovery for all in the community; position paper on principles and key elements of community-based mental health care
Background
Service providers throughout Europe have identified the need to define how high-quality community-based mental health care looks to organize their own services and to inform governments, commissioners and funders. In 2016, representatives of mental health care service providers, networks, umbrella organizations and knowledge institutes in Europe came together to establish the European Community Mental Health Services Provider (EUCOMS) Network. This network developed a shared vision on the principles and key elements of community mental health care in different contexts. The result is a comprehensive consensus paper, of which this position paper is an outline.
With this paper the network wants to contribute to the discussion on how to improve structures in mental healthcare, and to narrow the gap between evidence, policy and practice in Europe.
Main text
The development of the consensus paper started with an expert workshop in April 2016. An assigned writing group representing the workshop participants built upon the outcomes of this meeting and developed the consensus paper with the input from 100 European counterparts through two additional work groups, and two structured feedback rounds via email.
High quality community-based mental health care: 1) protects human rights; 2) has a public health focus; 3) supports service users in their recovery journey; 4) makes use of effective interventions based on evidence and client goals; 5) promotes a wide network of support in the community and; 6) makes use of peer expertise in service design and delivery. Each principle is illustrated with good practices from European service providers that are members of the EUCOMS Network.
Conclusions
Discussion among EUCOMS network members resulted in a blueprint for a regional model of integrated mental health care based upon six principles.
Journal Article
Mind easing : the three-layered healing plan for anxiety and depression
Explains how to relieve and resolve anxiety and depression by using the mind's natural ability to heal.
Book
Prompt mental health care, the Norwegian version of IAPT: clinical outcomes and predictors of change in a multicenter cohort study
Background
Prompt mental health care (PMHC) is a Norwegian initiative, inspired by the English ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapy’ (IAPT), aimed to provide low-threshold access to primary care treatment for persons with symptoms of anxiety and depression. The objectives of the present study are to describe the PMHC service, to examine changes in symptoms of anxiety and depression following treatment and to identify predictors of change, using data from the 12 first pilot sites.
Methods
A prospective cohort design was used. All participants were asked to complete questionnaires at baseline, before each treatment session and at the end of treatment. Effect sizes (ES) for pre-post changes and recovery rates were calculated based on the Patient Health Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale. Multiple imputation (MI) was used in order to handle missing data. We examined predictors through latent difference score models and reported the contribution of each predictor level in terms of ES.
Results
In total,
N
= 2512 clients received treatment at PMHC between October 2014 and December 2016, whereof 61% consented to participate. The changes from pre- to post-treatment were large for symptoms of both depression (ES = 1.1) and anxiety (ES = 1.0), with an MI-based reliable recovery rate of 58%. The reliable recovery rate comparable to IAPT based on last-observation-carried-forward was 48%. The strongest predictors for less improvement were having immigrant background (ES change depression − 0.27, ES change anxiety − 0.26), being out of work at baseline (ES change depression − 0.18, ES change anxiety − 0.35), taking antidepressants (ES change anxiety − 0.36) and reporting bullying as cause of problems (ES change depression − 0.29). Taking sleep medication did on the other hand predict more improvement (ES change depression 0.23, ES change anxiety 0.45).
Conclusions
Results in terms of clinical outcomes were promising, compared to both the IAPT pilots and other benchmark samples. Though all groups of clients showed substantial improvements, having immigrant background, being out of work, taking antidepressant medication and reporting bullying as cause stood out as predictors of poorer treatment response. Altogether, PMHC was successfully implemented in Norway. Areas for improvement of the service are discussed.
Journal Article