Do Mental Health Professionals Promote a Healthy Lifestyle among Individuals Experiencing Serious Mental Illness?

Purpose: While a healthy lifestyle would be an asset to people experiencing psychotic disorders, not all mental health professionals provide counselling regarding healthy behaviours, such as physical activity, healthy nutrition, and tobacco cessation. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to investigate the factors associated with health promotion practice (HPP) among mental health professionals.Methods: Cross-sectional survey including mental health professionals across the Province of Quebec (Canada). The promotion of health behaviour and the "Exercise in Mental Illness Questionnaire - Health Practitioner Version" and its adaptation for nutrition improvement and tobacco cessation were used to evaluate knowledge, beliefs, promotion behaviours, and barriers to HPP.Results: One hundred mental health professionals, most being nurses (29%) and medical doctors/psychiatrists (20%) were recruited throughout the province of Quebec (Canada). The rate of formal training among professionals was 11% for physical activity, 26% for nutrition, and 21% for tobacco cessation. Approximately 60% were promoting physical activity, 49% good nutrition, and 41% tobacco cessation. Professionals promoting healthy behaviours had a higher level of self-efficacy in HPP, were more likely to value physical health, and less likely to endorse barriers to HPP.Conclusion: Rates of formal training in lifestyle habits and health promotion (aiming at improving a healthy lifestyle in patients experiencing psychotic disorders) among mental health professionals are currently low in the Province of Quebec and need to be improved. In addition, the level of confidence and barriers that endorse healthy behaviours appear to be key factors in HPP among mental health professionals.

Effectiveness of interventions on breastfeeding self-efficacy and perceived insufficient milk supply: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy on an intervention on breastfeeding self-efficacy and perceived insufficient milk supply outcomes. The literature search was conducted among 6 databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsyncInfo, Scopus, Cochrane, and ProQuest) in between January 2000 to June 2016. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles for the following inclusion criteria: experimental or quasi-experimental studies; healthy pregnant women participants intending to breastfeed or healthy breastfeeding women who gave birth to a term singleton and healthy baby; intervention administered could have been educational, support, psycho-social, or breastfeeding self-efficacy based, offered in prenatal or postnatal or both, in person, over the phone, or with the support of e-technologies; breastfeeding self-efficacy or perceived insufficient milk supply as outcomes. Seventeen studies were included in this review; 12 were randomized controlled trials. Most interventions were self-efficacy based provided on 1-to-1 format. Meta-analysis of RCTs revealed that interventions significantly improved breastfeeding self-efficacy during the first 4 to 6 weeks (SMD = 0.40, 95% CI 0.11-0.69, p = 0.006). This further impact exclusive breastfeeding duration. Only 1 study reported data on perceived insufficient milk supply. Women who have made the choice to breastfeed should be offered breastfeeding self-efficacy-based interventions during the perinatal period. Although significant effect of the interventions in improving maternal breastfeeding self-efficacy was revealed by this review, there is still a paucity of evidence on the mode, format, and intensity of interventions. Research on the modalities of breastfeeding self-efficacy should be pursued.