Cross-cultural differences in depression between White British and South Asians: Causal attributions, stigma by association, discriminatory potential.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous facets of public and internalized mental illness stigma have been established. This study focuses on the stigma of being associated with someone with depression and cultural differences between a Western and an Eastern culture. The aim was to compare White British and South Asians living in the United Kingdom regarding their causal explanations for depression, stigma towards people with depression and stigma by association. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design. METHODS: White British and South Asians (N = 137) in the United Kingdom completed a survey measuring attributions about the aetiology of depression, discriminatory potential towards people with depression and stigma by association. RESULTS: Results revealed that South Asians attributed greater supernatural, moral and psychosocial causes to depression, while White British endorsed greater biological beliefs. South Asians reported a greater discriminatory potential towards people with depression (lower willingness for closeness, greater desire for social distance) than White British. They also indicated greater affective, cognitive and behavioural stigma by association. Stigma by association mediated the relationship between cultural group and willingness for closeness as well as desire for social distance. Perceived dangerousness was a mediator for willingness for closeness. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that a greater consideration of the role of culture in the understanding of mental health is important to combat stigma towards individuals with depression and those close to them across Western and Eastern cultures.

Randomized controlled trial of the "WISER" intervention to reduce healthcare worker burnout.

OBJECTIVE: Test web-based implementation for the science of enhancing resilience (WISER) intervention efficacy in reducing healthcare worker (HCW) burnout. DESIGN: RCT using two cohorts of HCWs of four NICUs each, to improve HCW well-being (primary outcome: burnout). Cohort 1 received WISER while Cohort 2 acted as a waitlist control. RESULTS: Cohorts were similar, mostly female (83%) and nurses (62%). In Cohorts 1 and 2 respectively, 182 and 299 initiated WISER, 100 and 176 completed 1-month follow-up, and 78 and 146 completed 6-month follow-up. Relative to control, WISER decreased burnout (-5.27 (95% CI: -10.44, -0.10), p = 0.046). Combined adjusted cohort results at 1-month showed that the percentage of HCWs reporting concerning outcomes was significantly decreased for burnout (-6.3% (95%CI: -11.6%, -1.0%); p = 0.008), and secondary outcomes depression (-5.2% (95%CI: -10.8, -0.4); p = 0.022) and work-life integration (-11.8% (95%CI: -17.9, -6.1); p < 0.001). Improvements endured at 6 months. CONCLUSION: WISER appears to durably improve HCW well-being. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02603133; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02603133.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Neonatal Intensive Care: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes of newborns requiring care in the NICU setting have been reported. The contribution of NICU care to disparities in outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature documenting racial/ethnic disparities in quality of care for infants in the NICU setting. DATA SOURCES: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health, and Web of Science were searched until March 6, 2018, by using search queries organized around the following key concepts: "neonatal intensive care units," "racial or ethnic disparities," and "quality of care." STUDY SELECTION: English language articles up to March 6, 2018, that were focused on racial and/or ethnic differences in the quality of NICU care were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and cross-checked results, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Information extracted focused on racial and/or ethnic disparities in quality of care and potential mechanism(s) for disparities. RESULTS: Initial search yielded 566 records, 470 of which were unique citations. Title and abstract review resulted in 382 records. Appraisal of the full text of the remaining 88 records, along with the addition of 5 citations from expert consult or review of bibliographies, resulted in 41 articles being included. LIMITATIONS: Quantitative meta-analysis was not possible because of study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this systematic review revealed complex racial and/or ethnic disparities in structure, process, and outcome measures, most often disadvantaging infants of color, especially African American infants. There are some exceptions to this pattern and each area merits its own analysis and discussion.

Correction: Disparities in NICU quality of care: a qualitative study of family and clinician accounts.

The original HTML version of this Article incorrectly showed the copyright holder to be 'Nature America, Inc., part of Springer Nature', when the correct copyright holder is 'The Authors 2018'. This has been corrected in the HTML version of the Article. The PDF version was correct from the time of publication.

Disparities in NICU quality of care: a qualitative study of family and clinician accounts.

OBJECTIVE: To identify how family advocates and clinicians describe disparities in NICU quality of care in narrative accounts. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of a survey requesting disparity stories at the 2016 VON Quality Congress. Accounts (324) were from a sample of RNs (n = 114, 35%), MDs (n = 109, 34%), NNPs (n = 55, 17%), RN other (n = 4, 1%), clinical other (n = 25, 7%), family advocates (n = 16, 5%), and unspecified (n = 1, <1%). RESULTS: Accounts (324) addressed non-exclusive disparities: 151 (47%) language; 97 (30%) culture or ethnicity; 72 (22%) race; 41 (13%) SES; 28 (8%) drug use; 18 (5%) immigration status or nationality; 16 (4%) sexual orientation or family status; 14 (4%) gender; 10 (3%) disability. We identified three types of disparate care: neglectful care 85 (26%), judgmental care 85 (26%), or systemic barriers to care 139 (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all accounts described differential care toward families, suggesting the lack of equitable family-centered care.