Search

Background: Psychiatric rehospitalization is a complex phenomenon in need of more person‐centred approaches. The current paper aimed to explore how community‐based actions and daily life influence mental health and rehospitalization. Design, setting and participants: The qualitative study included focus group data from six European countries including 59 participants. Data were thematically analysed following an inductive approach deriving themes and subthemes in relation to facilitators and barriers to mental health. Results: Barriers consisted of subthemes (financial difficulty, challenging family circumstances and stigma), and facilitators consisted of three subthemes (complementing services, signposting and recovery). The recovery subtheme consisted of a further five categories (family and friends, work and recreation, hope, using mental health experience and meaning). Discussion: Barriers to mental health largely related to social determinants of mental health, which may also have implications for psychiatric rehospitalization. Facilitators included community‐based actions and aspects of daily life with ties to personal recovery. By articulating the value of these facilitators, we highlight benefits of a person‐centred and recovery‐focused approach also within the context of psychiatric rehospitalization. Conclusions: This paper portrays how person‐centred approaches and day‐to‐day community actions may impact psychiatric rehospitalization via barriers and facilitators, acknowledging the social determinants of mental health and personal recovery. Patient or public contribution: The current study included participants with experience of psychiatric rehospitalization from six different European countries. Furthermore, transcripts were read by several of the focus group participants, and a service user representative participated in the entire research process in the original study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While there has been systematic research on the experiences of immigrant patients in mental health services within certain European countries, little research has explored the experiences of mental health professionals in the delivery of services to immigrants across Europe. This study sought to explore professionals' experiences of delivering care to immigrants in districts densely populated with immigrants across Europe. Methods: Forty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with mental health care professionals working in 16 European countries. Professionals in each country were recruited from three areas with the highest proportion of immigrants. For the purpose of this study, immigrants were defined as first-generation immigrants born outside the country of current residence, including regular immigrants, irregular immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: The interviews highlighted specific challenges to treating immigrants in mental health services across all 16 countries including complications with diagnosis, difficulty in developing trust and increased risk of marginalisation. Conclusions: Although mental health service delivery varies between and within European countries, consistent challenges exist in the experiences of mental health professionals delivering services in communities with high proportions of immigrants. Improvements to practice should include training in reaching appropriate diagnoses, a focus on building trusting relationships and measures to counter marginalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Socially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general population and can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particular challenge, and evidence on good practice is required. This study explored the experiences and views of experts in 14 European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sex workers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities. Methods: Two highly deprived areas were selected in the capital cities of 14 countries, and experts were interviewed for each of the six marginalised groups. Semi-structured interviews with case vignettes were conducted to explore experiences of good practice and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In a total of 154 interviews, four components of good practice were identified across all six groups: a) establishing outreach programmes to identify and engage with individuals with mental disorders; b) facilitating access to services that provide different aspects of health care, including mental health care, and thus reducing the need for further referrals; c) strengthening the collaboration and co-ordination between different services; and d) disseminating information on services both to marginalised groups and to practitioners in the area. Conclusions: Experts across Europe hold similar views on what constitutes good practice in mental health care for marginalised groups. Care may be improved through better service organisation, coordination and information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]