Search

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]

Persistent negative symptoms (PNS) are an important factor of first episode of psychosis (FEP) that present early on in the course of illness and have a major impact on long-term functional outcome. Lack of clinical insight is consistently associated with negative symptoms during the course of schizophrenia, yet only a few studies have explored its evolution in FEP. We sought to explore clinical insight change over a 24-month time period in relation to PNS in a large sample of FEP patients. Clinical insight was assessed in 515 FEP patients using the Scale to assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. Data on awareness of illness, belief in response to medication, and belief in need for medication were analyzed. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on the presence of negative symptoms: idiopathic (PNS; n = 135), secondary (sPNS; n = 98), or absence (non-PNS; n = 282). Secondary PNS were those with PNS but also had clinically relevant levels of positive, depressive, or extrapyramidal symptoms. Our results revealed that insight improved during the first 2 months for all groups. Patients with PNS and sPNS displayed poorer insight across the 24-month period compared to the non-PNS group, but these 2 groups did not significantly differ. This large longitudinal study supported the strong relationship known to exist between poor insight and negative symptoms early in the course of the disorder and probes into potential factors that transcend the distinction between idiopathic and secondary negative symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether first‐episode psychosis patients receiving extended early intervention had better functional outcomes than those in regular care and to examine the predictors of functional outcomes. Methods: This is a randomized controlled single‐blind trial of 220 patients randomized after 2 years of early intervention to receive early intervention or regular care for the subsequent 3 years. Outcomes included cumulative time in functional recovery during the 3‐year trial assessed using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS); and employment/education at last assessment which were, respectively, analyzed using multiple linear regression and logistic regression, accounting for well‐known predictors. Linear mixed and generalized linear models were also used to examine the course of SOFAS and employment/education over the 3‐year period. Results: The extended early intervention and regular care groups did not differ on time in functional recovery (mean = 50.17 weeks, SD = 46.62 vs. mean = 46.18 weeks, SD = 51.54); percent employed/in school (60.4% vs. 68.8%) or change in SOFAS or employment/education status over time. SOFAS scores were stable between years 2 and 5. Individuals with longer periods of total symptom remission experienced significantly longer periods of functional recovery and were likelier to be employed/in school. Those who had completed high school were nine times likelier to be employed/studying. Conclusion: Most individuals maintained functional gains accrued from 2 years of early intervention with no further improvement whether in extended early intervention or regular care. There was a gap between symptomatic and functional recovery, and one‐third were unemployed/not in school at year 5. The lack of additional progress even in extended early intervention suggests that specific interventions addressing functional roles need to be provided beyond the first 2 years of early intervention. Sustaining symptom remission and high‐school completion may be additional avenues for targeting functional recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-risk studies have reported an increased prevalence of attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children born to parents with bipolar disorder (BD). (1) There is also evidence that children with ADHD [...]