Search

Purpose: Cross-cultural psychosis research has typically focused on a limited number of outcomes (generally symptom-related). It is unknown if the purported superior outcomes for psychosis in some low- and middle-income countries extend to fundamental treatment processes like trust. Addressing this gap, we studied two similar first-episode psychosis programs in Montreal, Canada, and Chennai, India. We hypothesized higher trust in healthcare institutions and providers among patients and families in Chennai at baseline and over follow-up. Methods: Upon treatment entry and at months 3, 12 and 24, trust in healthcare providers was measured using the Wake Forest Trust scale and trust in the healthcare and mental healthcare systems using two single items. Nonparametric tests were performed to compare trust levels across sites and mixed-effects linear regression models to investigate predictors of trust in healthcare providers. Results: The study included 333 patients (Montreal = 165, Chennai = 168) and 324 family members (Montreal = 128, Chennai = 168). Across all timepoints, Chennai patients and families had higher trust in healthcare providers and the healthcare and mental healthcare systems. The effect of site on trust in healthcare providers was significant after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics known to impact trust. Patients' trust in doctors increased over follow-up. Conclusion: This study uniquely focuses on trust as an outcome in psychosis, via a comparative longitudinal analysis of different trust dimensions and predictors, across two geographical settings. The consistent differences in trust levels between sites may be attributable to local cultural values and institutional structures and processes and underpin cross-cultural variations in treatment engagement and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Psychiatry is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Although extensively studied in high-income countries (HICs) and less so in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), pathways to care and treatment delays in early psychosis have not been compared across contexts. We compared pathways to early intervention for psychosis in an HIC (Montreal, Canada) and an LMIC (Chennai, India). We hypothesised that the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) would be longer in Chennai. Methods: The number of contacts preceding early intervention, referral sources, first contacts, and DUP and its referral and help-seeking components of first-episode psychosis patients at both sites were similarly measured and compared using chi-square analyses and t tests/one-way ANOVAs. Results: Overall and help-seeking DUPs of Chennai (N = 168) and Montreal (N = 165) participants were not significantly different. However, Chennai patients had shorter referral DUPs [mean = 12.0 ± 34.1 weeks vs. Montreal mean = 13.2 ± 28.7 weeks; t(302.57) = 4.40; p < 0.001] as the early intervention service was the first contact for 44% of them (vs. 5% in Montreal). Faith healers comprised 25% of first contacts in Chennai. Those seeing faith healers had significantly shorter help-seeking but longer referral DUPs. As predicted, most (93%) Montreal referrals came from medical sources. Those seeing psychologists/counsellors/social workers as their first contact had longer DUPs. Conclusion: Differences in cultural views about mental illnesses and organizational structures shape pathways to care and their associations with treatment delays across contexts. Both formal and informal sources need to be targeted to reduce delays. Early intervention services being the first portal where help is sought can reduce DUP especially if accessed early on in the illness course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To study the impact of supervised antipsychotic medication discontinuation on clinical and functional outcomes in first-episode psychosis (FEP) in two different cultural environments. Method: FEP patients(N = 253), treated in two early intervention services (Montreal, Canada and Chennai, India) for 2 years, were assessed for medication use, positive and negative symptom remission and social–occupational functioning at regular intervals. Results: Between months 4 and 24 of treatment, 107 patients discontinued medication ('Off'group) as compared to 146 who stayed on medication ('On'group). Medication discontinuation was higher in Chennai as compared to Montreal (n = 80, 49.07% vs n = 27, 16.87%; χ2 37.80, p < 0.001), with no difference in time to discontinuation [Means(SDs) = 10.64(6.82) and 10.04(5.43), respectively, p = 0.71). At month 24 (N = 235), there were no differences in the rate of positive symptom remission between the on and Off groups (81.5 vs 88.0%, respectively) at both sites. The rate of negative symptom remission was lower among patients in the On compared to the Off group (63.2 vs 87.9%, respectively, χ2 = 17.91, p < 0.001), but only in Montreal (55.4% vs 80.0%, respectively, χ2 = 4.12, p < 0.05). Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale scores were equally high in both Off and On medication groups in Chennai [Means (SDs) = 79.43(12.95) and 73.59(17.63), respectively] but higher in the Off compared to the On group in Montreal Means (SDs) = 77.47(14.97) and 64.94(19.02), respectively; Time × site interaction F = 3.96(1,217), p < 0.05]. Medication status (On–Off) had no impact on the outcomes, independent of other variables known to influence outcomes. Conclusion: Certain cultural environments and patient characteristics may facilitate supervised discontinuation of antipsychotic medication following treatment of an FEP without negative consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with mental health problems have multiple, often inadequately met needs. Responsibility for meeting these needs frequently falls to patients, their families/caregivers, and governments. Little is known about stakeholders' views of who should be responsible for these needs and there are no measures to assess this construct. This study's objectives were to present the newly designed Whose Responsibility Scale (WRS), which assesses how stakeholders apportion responsibility to persons with mental health problems, their families, and the government for addressing various needs of persons with mental health problems, and to report its psychometric properties. Methods: The 22-item WRS asks respondents to assign relative responsibility to the government versus persons with mental health problems, government versus families, and families versus persons with mental health problems for seven support needs. The items were modelled on a World Values Survey item comparing the government's and people's responsibility for ensuring that everyone is provided for. We administered English, Tamil, and French versions to 57 patients, 60 family members, and 27 clinicians at two early psychosis programs in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada, evaluating test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and ease of use. Internal consistency estimates were also calculated for confirmatory purposes with the larger samples from the main comparative study. Results: Test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) generally ranged from excellent to fair across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians), settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). In the standardization and larger confirmatory samples, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alphas) ranged from acceptable to excellent. The WRS scored average on ease of comprehension and completion. Scores were spread across the 1–10 range, suggesting that the scale captured variations in views on how responsibility for meeting needs should be distributed. On select items, scores at one end of the scale were never endorsed, but these reflected expected views about specific needs (e.g., Chennai patients never endorsed patients as being substantially more responsible for housing needs than families). Conclusions: The WRS is a promising measure for use across geo-cultural contexts to inform mental health policies, and to foster dialogue and accountability among stakeholders about roles and responsibilities. It can help researchers study stakeholders' views about responsibilities, and how these shape and are shaped by sociocultural contexts and mental healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with mental health problems have many insufficiently met support needs. Across sociocultural contexts, various parties (e.g., governments, families, persons with mental health problems) assume responsibility for meeting these needs. However, key stakeholders' opinions of the relative responsibilities of these parties for meeting support needs remain largely unexplored. This is a critical knowledge gap, as these perceptions may influence policy and caregiving decisions. Methods: Patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 250), their family members (n = 228), and clinicians (n = 50) at two early intervention services in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada were asked how much responsibility they thought the government versus persons with mental health problems; the government versus families; and families versus persons with mental health problems should bear for meeting seven support needs of persons with mental health problems (e.g., housing; help covering costs of substance use treatment; etc.). Two-way analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences in ratings of responsibility between sites (Chennai, Montreal); raters (patients, families, clinicians); and support needs. Results: Across sites and raters, governments were held most responsible for meeting each support need and all needs together. Montreal raters assigned more responsibility to the government than did Chennai raters. Compared to those in Montreal, Chennai raters assigned more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems, except for the costs of substance use treatment. Family raters across sites assigned more responsibility to governments than did patient raters, and more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems than did patient and clinician raters. At both sites, governments were assigned less responsibility for addressing housing- and school/work reintegration-related needs compared to other needs. In Chennai, the government was seen as most responsible for stigma reduction and least for covering substance use services. Conclusions: All stakeholders thought that governments should have substantial responsibility for meeting the needs of individuals with mental health problems, reinforcing calls for greater government investment in mental healthcare across contexts. The greater perceived responsibility of the government in Montreal and of families in Chennai may both reflect and influence differences in cultural norms and healthcare systems in India and Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with mental health problems have many insufficiently met support needs. Across sociocultural contexts, various parties (e.g., governments, families, persons with mental health problems) assume responsibility for meeting these needs. However, key stakeholders' opinions of the relative responsibilities of these parties for meeting support needs remain largely unexplored. This is a critical knowledge gap, as these perceptions may influence policy and caregiving decisions. Methods: Patients with first-episode psychosis (n = 250), their family members (n = 228), and clinicians (n = 50) at two early intervention services in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada were asked how much responsibility they thought the government versus persons with mental health problems; the government versus families; and families versus persons with mental health problems should bear for meeting seven support needs of persons with mental health problems (e.g., housing; help covering costs of substance use treatment; etc.). Two-way analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences in ratings of responsibility between sites (Chennai, Montreal); raters (patients, families, clinicians); and support needs. Results: Across sites and raters, governments were held most responsible for meeting each support need and all needs together. Montreal raters assigned more responsibility to the government than did Chennai raters. Compared to those in Montreal, Chennai raters assigned more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems, except for the costs of substance use treatment. Family raters across sites assigned more responsibility to governments than did patient raters, and more responsibility to families versus persons with mental health problems than did patient and clinician raters. At both sites, governments were assigned less responsibility for addressing housing- and school/work reintegration-related needs compared to other needs. In Chennai, the government was seen as most responsible for stigma reduction and least for covering substance use services. Conclusions: All stakeholders thought that governments should have substantial responsibility for meeting the needs of individuals with mental health problems, reinforcing calls for greater government investment in mental healthcare across contexts. The greater perceived responsibility of the government in Montreal and of families in Chennai may both reflect and influence differences in cultural norms and healthcare systems in India and Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with mental health problems have multiple, often inadequately met needs. Responsibility for meeting these needs frequently falls to patients, their families/caregivers, and governments. Little is known about stakeholders' views of who should be responsible for these needs and there are no measures to assess this construct. This study's objectives were to present the newly designed Whose Responsibility Scale (WRS), which assesses how stakeholders apportion responsibility to persons with mental health problems, their families, and the government for addressing various needs of persons with mental health problems, and to report its psychometric properties. Methods: The 22-item WRS asks respondents to assign relative responsibility to the government versus persons with mental health problems, government versus families, and families versus persons with mental health problems for seven support needs. The items were modelled on a World Values Survey item comparing the government's and people's responsibility for ensuring that everyone is provided for. We administered English, Tamil, and French versions to 57 patients, 60 family members, and 27 clinicians at two early psychosis programs in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada, evaluating test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and ease of use. Internal consistency estimates were also calculated for confirmatory purposes with the larger samples from the main comparative study. Results: Test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) generally ranged from excellent to fair across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians), settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). In the standardization and larger confirmatory samples, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alphas) ranged from acceptable to excellent. The WRS scored average on ease of comprehension and completion. Scores were spread across the 1–10 range, suggesting that the scale captured variations in views on how responsibility for meeting needs should be distributed. On select items, scores at one end of the scale were never endorsed, but these reflected expected views about specific needs (e.g., Chennai patients never endorsed patients as being substantially more responsible for housing needs than families). Conclusions: The WRS is a promising measure for use across geo-cultural contexts to inform mental health policies, and to foster dialogue and accountability among stakeholders about roles and responsibilities. It can help researchers study stakeholders' views about responsibilities, and how these shape and are shaped by sociocultural contexts and mental healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Purported superior outcomes for treatment of psychosis in low- and middle-income (LMICs) compared with high-income (HICs) countries have not been examined in the context of early intervention services (EIS).Aims: To compare 2-year clinical outcomes in first-episode psychosis (FEP) treated in EIS in Chennai (LMIC) and Montreal (HIC) using a similar EIS treatment protocol and to identify factors associated with any outcome differences.Method: Patients with FEP treated in EIS in Chennai (n = 168) and Montreal (n = 165) were compared on change in level of symptoms and rate and duration of positive and negative symptom remission over a 2-year period. Repeated-measures analysis of variance, and logistic and linear regression analyses were conducted.Results: Four patients died in Chennai compared with none in Montreal. Family support was higher for Chennai patients (F = 14.05, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.061) and increased over time at both sites (F = 7.0, d.f. = 1.915, P < 0.001, ƞp2 = 0.03). Negative symptom outcomes were significantly better in Chennai for level of symptoms (time × site interaction F = 7.36, d.f. = 1.49, P = 0.002, ƞp2 = 0.03), duration of remission (mean 16.1 v. 9.78 months, t = -7.35, d.f. = 331, P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.80) and the proportion of patients in remission (81.5% v. 60.3%, χ2 = 16.12, d.f. = 1, P < 0.001). The site differences in outcome remained robust after adjusting for inter-site differences in other characteristics. Early remission and family support facilitated better outcome on negative symptoms. No significant differences were observed in positive symptom outcomes.Conclusions: Patients with FEP treated in EIS in LMIC contexts are likely to show better outcome on negative symptoms compared with those in HIC contexts. Early remission and family support may benefit patients across both contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: In many parts of the world, there is growing concern about youth homelessness. Homeless youth are particularly vulnerable to psychological distress, substance use and mental disorders, and premature mortality caused by suicide and drug overdose. However, their access to and use of mental health care is very limited. Methods: The Réseau d'intervention de proximité auprès des jeunes (RIPAJ), a Montreal network of over 20 community stakeholders providing a wide array of cohesive services, was created to ease homeless youth's access to mental health and psychosocial services. Its philosophy is that there should be no "wrong door" or "wrong timing" for youth seeking help. In 2014, the network partnered with the pan‐Canadian transformational research initiative, ACCESS Esprits ouverts. Results: Created through this partnership, ACCESS Esprits ouverts RIPAJ has been promoting early identification through outreach activities targeting homeless youth and agencies that serve them. An ACCESS Clinician was hired to promote and rapidly respond to help‐seeking and referrals. By strengthening connections within RIPAJ and using system navigation, the site is working to facilitate youth's access to timely appropriate care and eliminate age‐based transitions between services. A notable feature of our program, that is not usually evident in homelessness services, has been the engagement of the youth in service planning and design and the encouragement of contact with families and/or friends. Conclusion: Challenges remain including eliminating any remaining age‐related transitions of care between adolescent and adult services; and the sustainability of services transformation and network coordination. Nonetheless, this program serves as an example of an innovative, much‐needed, community‐oriented model for improving access to mental health care for homeless youth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]