Search

Objective: The goal of this scoping review was to assess the scope and nature of evidence concerning culturally sensitive grief treatment and support interventions, aiming to provide valuable insights for future research on grief intervention development. Introduction: Prolonged grief disorder (PGD), associated with adverse psychosocial outcomes, requires treatment. The norms of a person's culture influence grief expression, mourning rituals, and perspectives on death. Despite increasing interest in culturally sensitive grief interventions, a comprehensive synthesis of evidence is lacking. A scoping review was deemed fitting to address this gap. Inclusion criteria: This review included studies featuring participants experiencing clinically relevant grief and engaged in culturally sensitive psychosocial grief interventions. It included studies conducted in non-WEIRD contexts or those focusing on sociocultural (sub)groups distinct from the majority (in terms of age, religion, sexual orientation, etc). Methods: Following JBI methodology for scoping reviews, 13 databases were searched (Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, Sociological Abstracts, IBSS, PTSDpubs, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, PSYNDEX, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SocINDEX, and Web of Science). Limits included language (English and German), peer-reviewed articles and publication date (from 2000). The two-step screening process (titles and abstracts, full text) was piloted, and data were extracted and collated. Results: Eighteen studies were included, displaying diversity in geographical location, methodology, and target populations. Interventions targeted various forms of clinically relevant grief, lost relationships, and sociocultural groups. Cultural adaptation processes varied, with seven studies using a top-down approach. Sources of information for formative research involved theoretical models and empirical data, while local experts and qualitative research (e.g., key informant interviews) informed cultural adaptation. Outcome measures were diverse, with 15 studies showing significant pre-post intervention changes, while two did not. Conclusions: The review highlighted the emerging significance of culturally sensitive interventions for PGD, emphasizing the need for standardized approaches and further research. By shedding light on gaps and providing recommendations, it offers insights for future researchers in this field.

[Background] Mobile apps provide a unique platform for mental health assessment and monitoring. They can provide real time, accessible data on symptoms of mental disorders that may yield rich data for detailed clinical assessment and help individuals gain insight into their current mental state. We developed one of the first apps for tracking symptoms of prolonged grief disorder. [Method] In this pilot feasibility study, we assess the feasibility and acceptability of a new mobile app mGAGE for use once a day for 3 weeks. 27 participants completed mental health assessments at t1 and t2. [Results] Adherence to the app protocol was very high with 100% for the first two weeks of use. A surprising finding was the improvement of grief symptoms at t2. Debriefing interviews revealed general qualitative categories including positive feedback, negative feedback and specific recommendations. Overall, the app was found to be feasible for use for the first two weeks and acceptable for bereaved individuals. [Conclusions] This app could provide valuable data for in depth clinical assessment, may support individuals to gain greater insight into their symptoms and may have a therapeutic effect in terms of improved grief symptoms. Implications for future studies including use in larger intervention studies are discussed.

Abstract Background Mental health-related stigma is a global public health concern and a major barrier to seeking care. In this study, we explored the role of stigma as a barrier to scaling up mental health services in primary health care (PHC) centres in Lebanon. We focused on the experiences of Healthcare Providers (HCPs) providing services to patients with mental health conditions (MHCs), the views of policy makers, and the perceptions of stigma or discrimination among individuals with MHCs. This study was conducted as part of INDIGO-PRIMARY, a larger multinational stigma reduction programme. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 45) were carried out with policy makers (n = 3), PHC management (n = 4), PHC staff (n = 24), and service users (SUs) (n = 14) between August 2018 and September 2019. These interviews explored mental health knowledge, attitudes and behaviour of staff, challenges of providing treatment, and patient outcomes. All interviews were coded using NVivo and a thematic coding framework. Results The results of this study are presented under three themes: (1) stigma at PHC level, (2) stigma outside PHC centres, and (3) structural stigma. SUs did not testify to discrimination from HCPs but did describe stigmatising behaviour from their families. Interestingly, at the PHC level, stigma reporting differed among staff according to a power gradient. Nurses and social workers did not explicitly report incidents of stigma but described patients with MHCs as uncooperative, underscoring their internalized negative views on mental health. General practitioners and directors were more outspoken than nurses regarding the challenges faced with mental health patients. Mental health professionals revealed that HCPs still hold implicitly negative views towards patients with MHCs however their attitude has improved recently. Our analysis highlights five layers of stigma affecting SUs. Conclusion This qualitative study reveals that stigma was still a key concern that affects patients with MHC. SUs reported experiencing overt stigmatising behaviour in the community but less explicit discrimination in a PHC setting. Our findings emphasise the importance of (1) combatting structural stigma through legal reform, (2) addressing interpersonal stigma, (3) committing PHC management to deliver high quality mental health integrated services, and (4) reducing intrapersonal stigma by building public empathy.

Background Stigma among healthcare providers is a barrier to the effective delivery of mental health services in primary care. Few studies have been conducted in primary care settings comparing the attitudes of healthcare providers and experiences of people with mental illness who are service users in those facilities. Such research is necessary across diverse global settings to characterize stigma and inform effective stigma reduction. Methods Qualitative research was conducted on mental illness stigma in primary care settings in one low-income country (Nepal), two lower-middle income countries (India, Tunisia), one upper-middle-income country (Lebanon), and three high-income countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy). Qualitative interviews were conducted with 248 participants: 64 primary care providers, 11 primary care facility managers, 111 people with mental illness, and 60 family members of people with mental illness. Data were analyzed using framework analysis. Results Primary care providers endorsed some willingness to help persons with mental illness but reported not having appropriate training and supervision to deliver mental healthcare. They expressed that people with mental illness are aggressive and unpredictable. Some reported that mental illness is incurable, and mental healthcare is burdensome and leads to burnout. They preferred mental healthcare to be delivered by specialists. Service users did not report high levels of discrimination from primary care providers; however, they had limited expectations of support from primary care providers. Service users reported internalized stigma and discrimination from family and community members. Providers and service users reported unreliable psychiatric medication supply and lack of facilities for confidential consultations. Limitations of the study include conducting qualitative interviews in clinical settings and reliance on clinician-researchers in some sites to conduct interviews, which potentially biases respondents to present attitudes and experiences about primary care services in a positive manner. Conclusions Primary care providers’ willingness to interact with people with mental illness and receive more training presents an opportunity to address stigmatizing beliefs and stereotypes. This study also raises important methodological questions about the most appropriate strategies to accurately understand attitudes and experiences of people with mental illness. Recommendations are provided for future qualitative research about stigma, such as qualitative interviewing by non-clinical personnel, involving non-clinical staff for recruitment of participants, conducting interviews in non-clinical settings, and partnering with people with mental illness to facilitate qualitative data collection and analysis.