Factor structure and internal consistency of the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS) on a sample of persons with psychotic disorders in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The assessment of negative symptoms is crucial for development of adequate therapeutic interventions. This is a challenging task due to complex clinical presentation and lack of reliable and valid instruments. This study examined the psychometric characteristics of the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS). The sample consisted of 81 persons with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder recruited from two health institutions in the Sarajevo Canton: the Clinical Center of the University of Sarajevo and the Psychiatric Hospital of the Sarajevo Canton. The 13 CAINS items grouped into four factors (expression, motivation and satisfaction in the recreational domain, motivation and satisfaction with social relationships, motivation and satisfaction with job and education). The four-factor solution accounted for 87.83% of the variance of manifest items. The reliabilities of extracted factors were as follows: for motivation and satisfaction with social relationships α = 0.897, for motivation and satisfaction with job and education α = 0.961, for Motivation and satisfaction in the recreation domain α = 0.981, and for expression α = 0.938. The highest correlation between factors was found between Motivation and satisfaction with recreation and Motivation and satisfaction with social relationships. On the other hand, the lowest correlation was found between motivation and satisfaction with social relations and motivation and satisfaction with job and education. In conclusion, the study showed that the latent structure of CAINS is adequate, clearly interpretable, and consisted of four factors. The measure can be used for assessment of the negative symptoms in outpatients with psychosis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Implementing a digital mental health intervention for individuals with psychosis - a multi-country qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health services has the potential to improve the treatment of psychosis spectrum disorders (PSD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where care is predominantly focused on pharmacotherapy. The first step is to understand the views of key stakeholders. We conducted a multi-language qualitative study to explore the contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation of a cost-effective, digital psychosocial intervention, called DIALOG+, for treating PSD. DIALOG+ builds on existing clinician-patient relationships without requiring development of new services, making it well-fitting for healthcare systems with scarce resources. METHODS: Thirty-two focus groups were conducted with 174 participants (patients, clinicians, policymakers and carers), who were familiarized with DIALOG+ through a presentation. The Southeast European LMICs included in this research were: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, (Kosovo is referred throughout the text by United Nations resolution) North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Framework analysis was used to analyse the participants' accounts. RESULTS: Six major themes were identified. Three themes (Intervention characteristics; Carers' involvement; Patient and organisational benefits) were interpreted as perceived implementation facilitators. The theme Attitudes and perceived preparedness of potential adopters comprised of subthemes that were interpreted as both perceived implementation facilitators and barriers. Two other themes (Frequency of intervention delivery; Suggested changes to the intervention) were more broadly related to the intervention's implementation. Participants were exceedingly supportive of the implementation of a digital psychosocial intervention such as DIALOG+. Attractive intervention characteristics, efficient use of scarce resources for its implementation and potential to improve mental health services were seen as the main implementation facilitators. The major implementation barrier identified was psychiatrists' time constrains. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided important insights regarding implementation of digital psychosocial interventions for people with PSD in low-resource settings by including perspectives from four stakeholder groups in five LMICs in Southeast Europe - a population and region rarely explored in the literature. The perceived limited availability of psychiatrists could be potentially resolved by increased inclusion of other mental health professionals in service delivery for PSD. These findings will be used to inform the implementation strategy of DIALOG+ across the participating countries. The study also offers insights into multi-country qualitative research.