Satisfaction with psychiatric in-patient care as rated by patients at discharge from hospitals in 11 countries.

PURPOSE: There is disregard in the scientific literature for the evaluation of psychiatric in-patient care as rated directly by patients. In this context, we aimed to explore satisfaction of people treated in mental health in-patient facilities. The project was a part of the Young Psychiatrist Program by the Association for the Improvement of Mental Health Programmes. METHODS: This is an international multicentre cross-sectional study conducted in 25 hospitals across 11 countries. The research team at each study site approached a consecutive target sample of 30 discharged patients to measure their satisfaction using the five-item study-specific questionnaire. Individual and institution level correlates of 'low satisfaction' were examined by comparisons of binary and multivariate associations in multilevel regression models. RESULTS: A final study sample consisted of 673 participants. Total satisfaction scores were highly skewed towards the upper end of the scale, with a median total score of 44 (interquartile range 38-48) out of 50. After taking clustering into account, the only independent correlates of low satisfaction were schizophrenia diagnosis and low psychiatrist to patient ratio. CONCLUSION: Further studies on patients' satisfaction should additionally pay attention to treatment expectations formed by the previous experience of treatment, service-related knowledge, stigma and patients' disempowerment, and power imbalance.

Anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illness has been linked to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. Additionally, anticipation of discrimination may lead some individuals to avoid participation in particular life areas, leading to greater isolation and social marginalisation. This study aimed to establish the levels and clinical and socio-demographic associations of anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst those diagnosed with a schizophrenia and comparator severe mental illnesses (bipolar and major depressive disorders). METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of anticipated and experienced discrimination from 202 individuals in South London (47% with schizophrenia, 32% with depression and 20% with bipolar disorder). RESULTS: 93% of the sample anticipated discrimination and 87% of participants had experienced discrimination in at least one area of life in the previous year. There was a significant association between the anticipation and the experience of discrimination. Higher levels of experienced discrimination were reported by those of a mixed ethnicity, and those with higher levels of education. Women anticipated more discrimination than men. Neither diagnosis nor levels of functioning were associated with the extent of discrimination. Clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression and suspiciousness were associated with more experienced and anticipated discrimination respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illnesses remains unacceptably common. Population level interventions are needed to reduce levels of discrimination and to safeguard individuals. Interventions are also required to assist those with severe mental illness to reduce internalised stigma and social avoidance.

Decision aid on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: feasibility and outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Many mental health service users delay or avoid disclosing their condition to employers because of experience, or anticipation, of discrimination. However, non-disclosure precludes the ability to request 'reasonable adjustments'. There have been no intervention studies to support decision-making about disclosure to an employer. AIMS: To determine whether the decision aid has an effect that is sustained beyond its immediate impact; to determine whether a large-scale trial is feasible; and to optimise the designs of a larger trial and of the decision aid. METHOD: In this exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) in London, participants were randomly assigned to use of a decision aid plus usual care or usual care alone. Follow-up was at 3 months. Primary outcomes were: (a) stage of decision-making; (b) decisional conflict; and (c) employment-related outcomes (trial registration number: NCT01379014). RESULTS: We recruited 80 participants and interventions were completed for 36 out of 40 in the intervention group; in total 71 participants were followed up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that reduction in decisional conflict was significantly greater in the intervention group than among controls (mean improvement -22.7 (s.d. = 15.2) v. -11.2 (s.d. = 18.1), P = 0.005). More of the intervention group than controls were in full-time employment at follow-up (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The observed reduction in decisional conflict regarding disclosure has a number of potential benefits which next need to be tested in a definitive trial.

Mass media interventions for reducing mental health-related stigma.

BACKGROUND: Mental health-related stigma is widespread and has major adverse effects on the lives of people with mental health problems. Its two major components are discrimination (being treated unfairly) and prejudice (stigmatising attitudes). Anti-stigma initiatives often include mass media interventions, and such interventions can be expensive. It is important to know if mass media interventions are effective. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mass media interventions on reducing stigma (discrimination and prejudice) related to mental ill health compared to inactive controls, and to make comparisons of effectiveness based on the nature of the intervention (e.g. number of mass media components), the content of the intervention (e.g. type of primary message), and the type of media (e.g. print, internet). SEARCH METHODS: We searched eleven databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2011); MEDLINE (OvidSP),1966 to 15 August 2011; EMBASE (OvidSP),1947 to 15 August 2011; PsycINFO (OvidSP), 1806 to 15 August 2011; CINAHL (EBSCOhost) 1981 to 16 August 2011; ERIC (CSA), 1966 to 16 August 2011; Social Science Citation Index (ISI), 1956 to 16 August 2011; OpenSIGLE (http://www.opengrey.eu/), 1980 to 18 August 2012; Worldcat Dissertations and Theses (OCLC), 1978 to 18 August 2011; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/mrct_about.asp), 1973 to 18 August 2011; and Ichushi (OCLC), 1903 to 11 November 2011. We checked references from articles and reviews, and citations from included studies. We also searched conference abstracts and websites, and contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs or interrupted time series studies of mass media interventions compared to inactive controls in members of the general public or any of its constituent groups (excluding studies in which all participants were people with mental health problems), with mental health as a subject of the intervention and discrimination or prejudice outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We contacted study authors for missing information. Information about adverse effects was collected from study reports. Primary outcomes were discrimination and prejudice, and secondary outcomes were knowledge, cost, reach, recall, and awareness of interventions, duration/sustainability of media effects, audience reactions to media content, and unforeseen adverse effects. We calculated standardised mean differences and odds ratios. We conducted a primarily narrative synthesis due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to examine the effects of the nature, content and type of mass media intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 studies involving 4490 participants. All were randomised trials (3 were cluster RCTs), and 19 of the 22 studies had analysable outcome data. Seventeen of the studies had student populations. Most of the studies were at unclear or high risk of bias for all forms of bias except detection bias.Findings from the five trials with discrimination outcomes (n = 1196) were mixed, with effects showing a reduction, increase or consistent with no evidence of effect. The median standardised mean difference (SMD) for the three trials (n = 394) with continuous outcomes was -0.25, with SMDs ranging from -0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.39 to -0.31) to -0.17 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.20). Odds ratios (OR) for the two studies (n = 802) with dichotomous discrimination outcomes showed no evidence of effect: results were 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.19) and 1.19 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.65).The 19 trials (n = 3176) with prejudice outcomes had median SMDs favouring the intervention, at the three following time periods: -0.38 (immediate), -0.38 (1 week to 2 months) and -0.49 (6 to 9 months). SMDs for prejudice outcomes across all studies ranged from -2.94 (95% CI -3.52 to -2.37) to 2.40 (95% CI 0.62 to 4.18). The median SMDs indicate that mass media interventions may have a small to medium effect in decreasing prejudice, and are equivalent to reducing the level of prejudice from that associated with schizophrenia to that associated with major depression.The studies were very heterogeneous, statistically, in their populations, interventions and outcomes, and only two meta-analyses within two subgroups were warranted. Data on secondary outcomes were sparse. Cost data were provided on request for three studies (n = 416), were highly variable, and did not address cost-effectiveness. Two studies (n = 455) contained statements about adverse effects and neither reported finding any. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mass media interventions may reduce prejudice, but there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects on discrimination. Very little is known about costs, adverse effects or other outcomes. Our review found few studies in middle- and low-income countries, or with employers or health professionals as the target group, and none targeted at children or adolescents. The findings are limited by the quality of the evidence, which was low for the primary outcomes for discrimination and prejudice, low for adverse effects and very low for costs. More research is required to establish the effects of mass media interventions on discrimination, to better understand which types of mass media intervention work best, to provide evidence about cost-effectiveness, and to fill evidence gaps about types of mass media not covered in this review. Such research should use robust methods, report data more consistently with reporting guidelines and be less reliant on student populations.

A decision aid to assist decisions on disclosure of mental health status to an employer: protocol for the CORAL exploratory randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The UK Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for employers to ask health questions before making an offer of employment except in certain circumstances. While the majority of employers would prefer applicants to disclose a mental illness at the application stage, many people either wait until they have accepted the job and then disclose to an occupational health professional, or do not do so at all due to the anticipation of discrimination or a wish for privacy. However, non disclosure precludes the ability to request reasonable adjustments in the workplace or to make a claim of direct discrimination. Disclosure to employers is therefore a difficult decision. A recent pilot study by our group of the CORAL decision aid showed that it helped mental health service users clarify their needs and values regarding disclosure and led to reduction in decisional conflict. The present proof of concept trial aims to determine whether a full scale randomised controlled trial (RCT) is justifiable and feasible, and to optimise its design. METHODS: In this single blind exploratory RCT in London, a total of 80 participants (inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, on the caseload of a specialist employment adviser working with people with mental illness; referred to the adviser either from primary care via Improving Access to Psychological Therapies or secondary mental health service; currently seeking or interested in either paid or voluntary employment, and a Decisional Conflict Scale score of 37.5 or greater and stage of decision score 1-5) will be recruited from vocational advice services. After completing a baseline assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two conditions (1) Use of the CORAL Decision Aid (DA) in addition to treatment as usual or (2) Treatment as usual. Those allocated to the DA condition will be given it to read and complete, and the researcher will be present to record the time taken and any content that causes confusion. Intervention participants may keep the decision aid but are discouraged from showing it to other service users to avoid contamination. Follow up interviews will be conducted at 3 months. Primary outcomes are: (i) stage of decision making score; (ii) decisional conflict scores and (iii) employment related outcomes. Secondary analyses will identify predictors of disclosure and qualitative analysis will explore the impact of the intervention. DISCUSSION: A reduction in decisional conflict regarding disclosure leading to more effective job seeking activity could have significant economic consequences for people with mental illness in terms of employment rates and productivity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01379014 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier).

Stigma- and non-stigma-related treatment barriers to mental healthcare reported by service users and caregivers.

Delayed treatment seeking for people experiencing symptoms of mental illness is common despite available mental healthcare. Poor outcomes are associated with untreated mental illness and caregivers may eventually need to seek help on the service user's behalf. More attention has recently focused on the role of stigma in delayed treatment seeking. This study aimed to establish the frequency of stigma- and non-stigma-related treatment barriers reported by 202 service users and 80 caregivers; to compare treatment barriers reported by service users and caregivers; and to investigate demographic predictors of reporting stigma-related treatment barriers. The profile of treatment barriers differed between service users and caregivers. Service users were more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers than caregivers across all stigma-related items. Service users who were female, had a diagnosis of schizophrenia or with GCSEs (UK qualifications usually obtained at age 16) were significantly more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers. Caregivers who were female or of Black ethnicities were significantly more likely to report stigma-related treatment barriers. Multifaceted approaches are needed to reduce barriers to treatment seeking for both service users and caregivers, with anti-stigma interventions being of particular importance for the former group.

Discrimination attributed to mental illness or race-ethnicity by users of community psychiatric services.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed participants' experienced discrimination and their causal attributions, particularly to mental illness or race-ethnicity. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 202 service users with severe mental illnesses were interviewed to assess their reported experiences of discrimination. The Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale assessed major experiences of discrimination and their recency and frequency across 12 life domains and perceived reasons (attributions). The Everyday Experiences of Discrimination Scale assessed ten types of everyday discrimination and attributions for these experiences. RESULTS: Most participants (88%) reported discrimination in at least one life domain, and 94% reported ever experiencing everyday discrimination. The most common areas of major discrimination were mental health care (44%), neighbors (42%), police (33%), employment (31%), and general medical care (31%). The most common attributions for major discrimination were mental illness (57%), race-ethnicity (24%), education or income (20%), or appearance (19%). Almost half (47%) attributed experiences of major discrimination to two or more causes. No differences were found between racial-ethnic groups in overall experienced discrimination or in main attributions to mental illness. However, compared with the mixed and white groups, participants in the black group were most likely to endorse race-ethnicity as a main attribution (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mental illness-related discrimination was found to be a common issue across racial-ethnic groups, and discrimination based on race-ethnicity was prevalent for the mixed and black groups. There is a need for antidiscrimination strategies that combine efforts to reduce the experience of discrimination attributed to mental illness and to race-ethnicity for racial-ethnic minority groups.