Mental health professionals' attitudes towards mental illness: professional and cultural factors in the INTER NOS study.

BACKGROUND: Research shows that personnel working in mental health facilities may share some of the societal prejudices towards mental illness. This might result in stigmatizing behaviours towards people suffering from mental disorders, undermining the quality of their care. AIMS: To describe and compare attitudes towards mental illness across a sample of professionals working in a wide range of mental health facilities in Spain, Portugal and Italy. METHOD: We administered a survey to personnel including two questionnaires related to stigmatizing attitudes: The Community Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill (CAMI) and the Attribution Questionnaire (AQ-27). Data were compared according to professional category, work setting and country. RESULTS: 34.06% (1525) professionals of the surveyed population responded adequately. Psychologists and social therapists had the most positive attitudes, and nursing assistants the most negative, on most factors of CAMI and AQ-27. Community staff had more positive attitudes than hospital-based professionals in most factors on CAMI and in discriminatory responses on AQ-27. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, mental health professionals showed a positive attitude towards mental illness, but also a relative support to coercive treatments. There are differences in attitudes modulated by professional category and setting. Results can guide preventive strategies, particularly for the hospital-based and nursing staff.

Key Elements of a Family Intervention for Schizophrenia: A Qualitative Analysis of an RCT.

Schizophrenia is a complex biopsychosocial condition in which expressed emotion in family members is a robust predictor of relapse. Not surprisingly, family interventions are remarkably effective and thus recommended in current treatment guidelines. Their key elements seem to be common therapeutic factors, followed by education and coping skills training. However, few studies have explored these key elements and the process of the intervention itself. We conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the records from a pioneering family intervention trial addressing expressed emotion, published by Leff and colleagues four decades ago. Records were analyzed into categories and data explored using descriptive statistics. This was complemented by a narrative evaluation using an inductive approach based on emotional markers and markers of change. The most used strategies in the intervention were addressing needs, followed by coping skills enhancement, advice, and emotional support. Dealing with overinvolvement and reframing were the next most frequent. Single-family home sessions seemed to augment the therapeutic work conducted in family groups. Overall the intervention seemed to promote cognitive and emotional change in the participants, and therapists were sensitive to the emotional trajectory of each subject. On the basis of our findings, we developed a longitudinal framework for better understanding the process of this treatment approach.

What do We Know about Family Interventions for Psychosis at the Process Level? A Systematic Review.

The evidence regarding effectiveness of family interventions for psychosis (FIP) is strong and consistent. However, there is a gap in the research on the process of these interventions, and little is known about their active ingredients. This review aims to identify the active ingredients of FIP. We conducted a systematic literature review, focusing on qualitative research, and analyzed 22 papers in total. We found a single study comprehensively exploring the process of FIP. All other studies focused on particular aspects of process-related variables. The key elements of FIP seem to be the so-called "common therapeutic factors", followed by education about the illness and coping skills training. This review supports the value of a stepped model of intervention according to the needs of the families. However, the evidence reviewed also reveals a gap in the research findings based on the limited research available. FIP are complex, psychosocial interventions with multiple components, and more intensive, qualitative research is needed to establish linkages between process and outcome.

Criterion and construct validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) to measure depression in patients with cancer: The contribution of somatic items.

Background/Objective: Screening for depression in patients with cancer can be difficult due to overlap between symptoms of depression and cancer. We assessed validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) in this population. Method: Data was obtained in an outpatient neuropsychiatry unit treating patients with and without cancer. Psychometric properties of the BDI-II Portuguese version were assessed separately in 202 patients with cancer, and 376 outpatients with mental health complaints but without cancer. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure model (cognitive, affective and somatic) provided best fit to data in both samples. Criterion validity was good for detecting depression in oncological patients, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.91). A cut-off score of 14 had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 73%. Excluding somatic items did not significantly change the ROC curve for BDI-II (difference AUCs = 0.002, p=0.9). A good criterion validity for BDI-II was also obtained in the non-oncological population (AUC = 0.87; 95% CI 0.81-0.91), with a cut-off of 18 (sensitivity=84%; specificity=73%). Conclusions: The BDI-II demonstrated good psychometric properties in patients with cancer, comparable to a population without cancer. Exclusion of somatic items did not affect screening accuracy.

Symptom provocation for treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder using transcranial magnetic stimulation: A step-by-step guide for professional training.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) is a non-invasive brain stimulation technique that was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) in 2018. The approved protocol includes individualized symptom provocation before each stimulation session, to elicit a moderate level of obsessional distress. Although symptom provocation can be a delicate, demanding, and uncomfortable procedure, structured training methods for those who are going to apply it are not available. Here, we describe a model for training in symptom provocation for TMS technicians, developed at the Champalimaud Clinical Centre in Lisbon, Portugal. Our programme includes two-sessions dedicated to clinical communication and symptom provocation techniques from a theoretical and practical perspective. Additionally, supervision meetings are conducted during treatment of patients, allowing regular case discussion and redefinition of symptom provocation hierarchy, as needed. In addition to having a strong practical component, our training program is short and pragmatic, allowing for easy implementation and fluid transition to clinical practice. By sharing our experience, we hope to contribute to systematize training procedures required for symptom provocation in the context of TMS, and to qualitatively describe a methodology that can be used for implementation of TMS programmes for the treatment of OCD.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Portuguese version of the family resilience questionnaire - short form (FaRE-SF-P) in women with breast cancer.

Background: A diagnosis of cancer, and the resulting treatment process, can be perceived as a life-threatening event, affecting not only patients but also their social network and, more specifically, their relatives. While the ability to cope and adjust to difficult health situations may be challenging, family resilience may optimize a positive adaptation to adversity and contribute to enhance the patient's quality of life. The Family Resilience Questionnaire (FaRE) is a self-report measure of family resilience that assesses this construct systematically. We aimed to validate the Portuguese version of a short form of the FaRE (FaRE-SF-P) in a sample of women with breast cancer. Methods: 147 women recently diagnosed with early breast cancer were recruited at the Champalimaud Clinical Centre in Lisbon. Participants completed psychometric assessment including the Portuguese version of the FaRE-SF-P, composed by two subscales of the original version - the FaRE Perceived Family Coping (FaRE-PFC) and the FaRE Communication and Cohesion (FaRE-CC). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the factor structure of the FaRE-SF-P. Construct validity was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for divergent validity, and the Modified Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (mMOS-SS) as well as the social functioning subscale from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for convergent validity. Results: The CFA results confirmed a correlated two-factor structure model consistent with the Perceived Family Coping and the Communication and Cohesion subscales. Internal consistency reliability indicated good values both for Perceived Family Coping and Communication and Cohesion subscales. The results for construct validity showed acceptable convergent and divergent validity. Discussion: The FaRE-SF-P showed good psychometric properties demonstrating to be a valid and reliable family resilience measure to use in Portuguese women diagnosed with breast cancer. Since FaRE-SF-P is a short instrument it may be a useful screening tool in an oncological clinical practice routine.

In light of the DSM-5 dimensional model of personality: Borderline personality disorder at the crossroads with the bipolar spectrum.

BACKGROUND: State-of-the-art research highlights that borderline personality disorder (PD) and bipolar spectrum disorders have clinical characteristics in common, which imply uncertainty in differential diagnoses. Although there is a growing body of literature on the DSM-5 dimensional model of personality disorder, its discriminative features between these clinical samples are still understudied. In this study, we seek to identify the best set of predictors that differentiate between borderline PD and bipolar spectrum, based on pathological and normative personality traits and symptoms. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of three clinical samples: 1) Borderline PD group of 63 participants; 2) Major depressive disorder group of 89 participants; 3) Bipolar disorder group of 65 participants. Self-reported assessment: Personality Inventory for DSM-5; Brief Symptom Inventory; FFM Inventory. A series of one-way ANOVAs and logistic regression analyses were computed. RESULTS: The major set of data emerging as common discriminants of borderline PD across the bipolar spectrum are unusual beliefs & experiences, paranoid ideation, obsession-compulsion and extraversion. Depressivity (OR: 34.95) and impulsivity (OR: 22.35) pathological traits displayed the greatest predictive values in the differential diagnosis. LIMITATIONS: The small size of the samples; a lack of data from participants' previous clinical history. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the DSM-5 pathological traits as differentiating borderline PD through bipolar spectrum, and reinforcing the joint use of symptom-related pathological functioning and normal-range personality traits. Alongside the bipolar spectrum, borderline pathology sheds light upon a hypothetical overlap along the depressive and schizoaffective/schizophrenia spectra, representing a borderland space at a crossroads with the psychopathology of a meta-spectrum.

The Utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 Traits for Differentiating Patients With Personality Disorders From Other Clinical Groups.

The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders delineates five trait domain qualifiers (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia), whereas the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders also delineates a separate domain of psychoticism. These six combined traits not only characterize individual stylistic features, but also the severity of their maladaptive expressions. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to investigate the utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains to differentiate patients with personality disorders (PD) from patients with other mental disorders (non-PD). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+M) was administered to a sample of patients diagnosed with a personality disorder (N = 124, M age = 42.21, 42.7% females) along with a sample of patients diagnosed with other mental disorders (N = 335, M age = 44.83, 46.6% females). Group differences were explored using the independent sample t test or the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples, and discriminant factor analysis was used to maximize group differences for each trait domain and facet score. The PD group showed significantly higher scores for the total PID5BF+M composite score, for the trait domains of negative affectivity, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition and for the trait facets of emotional lability, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and impulsivity. The trait domains of disinhibition, negative affectivity, and antagonism/dissociality as well as the trait facets of impulsivity, deceitfulness, emotional lability, and manipulativeness were the best discriminators between PD and non-PD patients. The global PID5BF+M composite score was also one of the best discriminators supporting its potential as a global severity index for detecting personality dysfunction. Finally, high scores in three or more of the 18 PID5BF+M facets suggested the possible presence of a PD diagnosis. Despite some limitations, our findings suggest that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 traits have the potential to specifically describe the stylistic features that characterize individuals with PD, including the severity of their maladaptive expressions.

Protocol for the Implementation and Assessment of "MoodUP": A Stepped Care Model Assisted by a Digital Platform to Accelerate Access to Mental Health Care for Cancer Patients Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has important consequences for the mental health of populations. Patients with cancer, already at risk for poor mental health outcomes, are not expected to be spared from these consequences, prompting the need for health services to improve responsiveness. This article presents the research protocol for an implementation study designed to describe the uptake of a well-studied and recognized system for the treatment of depression and anxiety (Stepped-care) during the specific context of a Pandemic in an oncological site. The system set-up will be assisted by a digital platform (MoodUP), where patients undergoing cancer treatment will be screened for anxiety and depressive symptoms, triaged by severity level and algorithm-matched to recommended interventions. Patients undergoing cancer treatment at a cancer clinic in Portugal will be invited to subscribe to the MoodUP platform where they will complete a self-reported questionnaire (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) to screen their anxiety and depressive symptoms. Data will be instantly collected, and an algorithm will activate severity-matched intervention suggestions, through a case manager that will coordinate care. The specific objectives of this study will be to describe the implementation and acceptability of the care system by patients and staff, the barriers to and facilitators of implementation, the proportion of patients accessing the system and their pathways through the various stepped-care interventions, and patient perceptions regarding the feasibility and appropriateness of the eHealth platform. Moreover, exploratory analyses will be conducted to describe patterns of anxiety and depression symptoms variation across all patients, as well as within sociodemographically, clinically and contextually characterized subgroups, to characterize their care needs and access, as well as to explore for whom the MoodUP care system may be more appropriate. This study is expected to improve processes for collaborative mental healthcare in oncology and accelerate the digitalization of services, towards the improvement of mental healthcare access, and management of high-risk patients, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Criterion and construct validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) to measure depression in patients with cancer: The contribution of somatic items

Background/Objective: Screening for depression in patients with cancer can be difficult due to overlap between symptoms of depression and cancer. We assessed validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) in this population. Method: Data was obtained in an outpatient neuropsychiatry unit treating patients with and without cancer. Psychometric properties of the BDI-II Portuguese version were assessed separately in 202 patients with cancer, and 376 outpatients with mental health complaints but without cancer. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure model (cognitive, affective and somatic) provided best fit to data in both samples. Criterion validity was good for detecting depression in oncological patients, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–0.91). A cut-off score of 14 had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 73%. Excluding somatic items did not significantly change the ROC curve for BDI-II (difference AUCs = 0.002, p=0.9). A good criterion validity for BDI-II was also obtained in the non-oncological population (AUC = 0.87; 95% CI 0.81–0.91), with a cut-off of 18 (sensitivity=84%; specificity=73%). Conclusions: The BDI-II demonstrated good psychometric properties in patients with cancer, comparable to a population without cancer. Exclusion of somatic items did not affect screening accuracy. (AU)