The relations between socio-demographic information and negative symptoms, mental health, and quality of life: a latent profile analysis with psychotic patients in Kosovo.

The current study aims to identify meaningful psychotic patients' profiles by examining certain combinations of patient's demographic and socio-economic variables (sex, age, marital status, number of children, cohabitant and level of education). Moreover, we aim to assess whether there is any significant effect of class membership (profile) on negative symptoms, health state, and quality of life among psychotic patients. A convenience sample of 103 patients (age: M = 22, SD = 1.75), was drawn from the clinical populations of Kosovo. Demographic and socio-economic data was obtained through individual interviews, meanwhile a battery of questionnaires was used to assess negative symptoms, mental health, and quality of life of patients. The 4-class solution was selected as the best fitting model and used in subsequent analyses. Results indicated a significant effect of class membership on health state, quality of life and negative symptoms. Practical implications are discussed.

Perceived sustainability of psychosocial treatment in low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: DIALOG+ is an evidence-based, generic, cost-saving and easily deliverable psychosocial intervention, adaptable to clinicians' personal manner of interaction with patients. It was implemented in mental health services in five low- and middle-income countries in South-Eastern Europe during a 12-month randomised-controlled trial (IMPULSE) to improve the effectiveness of out-patient treatment for people with psychotic disorders. AIMS: To investigate barriers and facilitators to the perceived sustainability of DIALOG+ that has been successfully implemented as a part of the IMPULSE project. METHOD: Three months after the IMPULSE trial's end, perceived sustainability of the DIALOG+ intervention was assessed via a short survey of clinicians and patients who took part in the trial. Quantitative data collected from the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; content analysis assessed qualitative survey data. The views and experiences of key informants (patients, clinicians and healthcare policy influencers) regarding the sustainability and scale-up of DIALOG+ were further explored through semi-structured interviews. These data were explored using framework analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians mostly appreciated the comprehensiveness of DIALOG+, and patients described DIALOG+ meetings as empowering and motivating. The barrier most commonly identified by key informants was availability of financial resources; the most important facilitators were the clinically relevant structure and comprehensiveness of the DIALOG+ intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Participants showed a willingness to sustain the implementation of DIALOG+. It is important to maintain collaboration with healthcare policy influencers to improve implementation of DIALOG+ across different levels of healthcare systems and ensure availability of resources for implementing psychosocial interventions such as DIALOG+.