scholarly journals Whose responsibility? Part 1 of 2: A scale to assess how stakeholders apportion responsibilities for addressing the needs of persons with mental health problems

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srividya N. Iyer ◽  
Megan Pope ◽  
Aarati Taksal ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
Thara Rangaswamy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
The Government ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Whose responsibility is it to address the needs of persons with mental health problems? Development of a scale to assess how stakeholders distribute responsibilities across geo-cultural contexts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srividya Iyer ◽  
Megan Pope ◽  
Aarati Taksal ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
Thara Rangaswamy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Cultural Contexts ◽  
The Government ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract 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 vis-à-vis persons with mental health problems, government vis-à-vis families, and families vis-à-vis 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. Results Test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) ranged from excellent to good across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians); settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). 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 are shaped by and shape sociocultural contexts and mental healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Validation of the Strengths and Difficulties Self-Report in Norwegian Sign Language

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Margaret Aanondsen ◽  
Thomas Jozefiak ◽  
Kerstin Heiling ◽  
Tormod Rimehaug
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Strengths And Difficulties ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract The majority of studies on mental health in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children report a higher level of mental health problems. Inconsistencies in reports of prevalence of mental health problems have been found to be related to a number of factors such as language skills, cognitive ability, heterogeneous samples as well as validity problems caused by using written measures designed for typically hearing children. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Norwegian Sign Language (NSL; SDQ-NSL) and in written Norwegian (SDQ-NOR). Forty-nine DHH children completed the SDQ-NSL as well as the SDQ-NOR in randomized order and their parents completed the parent version of the SDQ-NOR and a questionnaire on hearing and language-related information. Internal consistency was examined using Dillon–Goldstein’s rho, test–retest reliability using intraclass correlations, construct validity by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and partial least squares structural equation modeling. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were established as acceptable to good. CFA resulted in a best fit for the proposed five-factor model for both versions, although not all fit indices reached acceptable levels. The reliability and validity of the SDQ-NSL seem promising even though the validation was based on a small sample size.

scholarly journals ShareDisk: A novel visual tool to assess perceptions about who should be responsible for supporting persons with mental health problems

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-418
Author(s):  
Srividya N Iyer ◽  
Megan A Pope ◽  
Gerald Jordan ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
Heleen Loohuis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Language And Literacy ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Visual Tool ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
High Test

Objectives: Views on who bears how much responsibility for supporting individuals with mental health problems may vary across stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians) and cultures. Perceptions about responsibility may influence the extent to which stakeholders get involved in treatment. Our objective was to report on the development, psychometric properties and usability of a first-ever tool of this construct. Methods: We created a visual weighting disk called ‘ShareDisk’, measuring perceived extent of responsibility for supporting persons with mental health problems. It was administered (twice, 2 weeks apart) to patients, family members and clinicians in Chennai, India ( N = 30, 30 and 15, respectively) and Montreal, Canada ( N = 30, 32 and 15, respectively). Feedback regarding its usability was also collected. Results: The English, French and Tamil versions of the ShareDisk demonstrated high test–retest reliability ( rs = .69–.98) and were deemed easy to understand and use. Conclusion: The ShareDisk is a promising measure of a hitherto unmeasured construct that is easily deployable in settings varying in language and literacy levels. Its clinical utility lies in clarifying stakeholder roles. It can help researchers investigate how stakeholders’ roles are perceived and how these perceptions may be shaped by and shape the organization and experience of healthcare across settings.

scholarly journals Whose responsibility? Part 2 of 2: views of patients, families, and clinicians about responsibilities for addressing the needs of persons with mental health problems in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srividya N. Iyer ◽  
Ashok Malla ◽  
Megan Pope ◽  
Sally Mustafa ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Substance Use Treatment ◽  
First Episode ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
School Work ◽  
The Government

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Depressive Symptoms, Help-Seeking, and Barriers to Mental Healthcare Among Healthcare Professionals in Lithuania

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Daniel Rogoža ◽  
Robertas Strumila ◽  
Eglė Klivickaitė ◽  
Edgaras Diržius ◽  
Neringa Čėnaitė
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Poor Mental Health ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Patient Health

Background: Previous research suggests that healthcare professionals (HCPs) experience high levels of work-related psychological distress, including depressive symptoms. Due to the stigma of mental health problems and other barriers, HCPs are likely to be hesitant to seek appropriate mental healthcare. We aimed to explore these phenomena among HCPs in Lithuania.Methods: A web survey inquiring about depressive symptoms, help-seeking, and barriers to mental healthcare was conducted. Depressive symptoms were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). 601 complete questionnaires were included in the analyses. The barriers to help-seeking were identified using the inductive content analysis approach. Descriptive, non-parametric, and robust statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software.Results: Most of the respondents have reported depression-like symptoms over the lifetime, although only about a third of them sought professional help. Of those, roughly half preferred a private specialist. The stigma and neglect of mental health problems were the most common barriers to help-seeking. Around half of the HCPs believed that seeking mental healthcare can imperil their occupational license. About a quarter of the HCPs screened positive for clinically relevant depressive symptoms. Statistically significant differences in the PHQ-9 score were found between categories of healthcare specialty, marital status, religious beliefs, workplace, and years of work as a HCP. Fewer years of work and younger age were associated with the higher PHQ-9 score.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that HCPs in Lithuania may be inclined not to seek appropriate mental healthcare and experience poor mental health, although stronger evidence is needed to verify these findings. 

scholarly journals Factors Associated with Mental Health among International Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic in South Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11381
Author(s):  
Hae Ran Kim ◽  
Eun Jung Kim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
International Students ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Web Based ◽  
South Korean ◽  
The Government

The purpose of this study was to investigate mental health problems among international students in South Korean universities during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to identify the factors that affect their mental health. A total of 488 international students living in South Korea participated in a web-based survey. The questionnaire was created using the Google Forms platform, and a link to the questionnaire was shared through social media. Multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the data. The prevalence rates of sleep problems, anxiety, and depression among international students were 47.1%, 39.6%, and 49%, respectively. The prevalence of mental health problems was higher among participants who were male, living with someone, residents of a rural area, and earning a higher income. The following variables were found to contribute to the prevalence of mental health problems: undergraduate student status, good understanding of the Korean language, longer hours of media usage, and experiences related to COVID-19 infection. A collaborative effort between the government and universities to manage the mental health of international students could promote the mental health of these students.

Increasing Trends in Physical and Mental Health Problems among US Workers in Different Job Sectors During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-102
Author(s):  
Gopal K Singh ◽  
Hyunjung Lee ◽  
Romuladus E. Azuine
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Sector ◽  
Family Business ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Health Workers ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
The Self ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Government

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial adverse impact on workers’ employment and physical and mental health. However, job losses, job-related household income shocks, and their related physical and mental health problems have not been well-documented. Using temporal, nationally representative data, this study examines inequalities in job-related income losses and their resultant health impact among US workers aged 18-64 years in different job sectors during the pandemic. Methods: Using April, August, and December 2020 rounds of the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (N=56,156, 82,173, and 51,500), job-related income losses among workers in various job sectors and associated impacts on self-assessed health, depression, anxiety, worry, and lack of interest were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. Results: In December 2020, 64.0% of self-employed and 66.3% of unemployed adults reported that they or someone in their household experienced a loss of employment income since the start of the pandemic in March 2020. This percentage was the lowest for the public sector (35.2%) and non-profit-sector (45.0%) workers. Job/income losses increased by 26% between April and December for workers in the private and non-profit sectors. Prevalence of fair/poor overall health, serious depression, serious anxiety, serious worry, and serious lack of interest increased substantially during the pandemic for workers in all sectors, with the self-employed, those in the family business, and the unemployed experiencing the highest risk and those in the government/public and non-profit sectors experiencing the lowest risk of poor physical and mental health. Workers in all sectors reporting job-related income losses experienced approximately 2-to-4-fold higher odds of poor overall health, serious depression, serious anxiety, serious worry, and serious lack of interest, compared to public-sector workers with no job/income losses, controlling for covariates. Conclusion and Implications for Translation: Job-related income losses and prevalence of poor overall health and mental health among workers in all sectors increased markedly during the pandemic, with the self-employed, family business, and unemployed workers being especially vulnerable to poor health, depression, anxiety, and stress.   Copyright © 2021 Singh, et al. Published by Global Health and Education Projects, Inc. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in this journal, is properly cited.

scholarly journals Choice in mental health: myths and possibilities

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koravangattu Menon Valsraj ◽  
Nichola Gardner
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Social Inclusion ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Healthcare Model ◽  
The Government

The government in England and Wales is promoting policies and initiatives to offer patients choice across all healthcare specialties. This has raised concerns in mental healthcare, particularly if the physical healthcare model of implementation is imposed. However, the ‘choice agenda’ is an opportunity for mental health services to be innovative and act as beacons to other disciplines in healthcare. The south-east London programme introducing choice in mental health services is offered as an example here. There already exists an ‘ethos of choice’ within mental health services, but current practices may require a focused approach and structuring to fit in with national policy. This also might be necessary to influence policy makers to take a different perspective on choice in mental health. The principle of choice goes hand in hand with the drive towards greater social inclusion for people with mental health problems.

Preliminary Evaluation of the Italian Version of the Inspire Measure of Staff Support for Personal Recovery

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S489-S489
Author(s):  
N. Ratti ◽  
B. Mattioli ◽  
L. Mellini ◽  
I. Negri ◽  
A. Mastrocola
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Personal Recovery ◽  
Italian Version ◽  
Staff Support ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Functional Features ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

IntroductionSupporting personal recovery has become the main aim for mental health services in many countries nowadays. In particular, the relationship between individual service users and staff members can be the key issue in supporting recovery and this requires specific measures in order to identify and evaluate the orientation of services in this process of change. INSPIRE is a standardized questionnaire developed by King's College, London that represents a service user-rated measure of staff support for personal recovery in the UK.ObjectiveAlthough there is a number of instruments aimed at monitoring recovery in the clinical and functional features, there is still lack of measures for personal recovery and recovery orientation of services in the Italian background.AimsThe aim of this study is to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Italian version of INSPIRE as it is applied in the Italian mental health services.MethodsTwo rounds of data were collected from a sample of 79 inpatients and outpatients of rehabilitation centers and consultant service of the municipality of Ravenna. Analysis was undertaken using SPSS. The main issues investigated were internal consistency, test-retest reliability and exploratory factor analysis.ResultsThe results in the present studies indicate that the Italian version of the INSPIRE measure had a very good internal consistency and a satisfactory test-retest reliability.ConclusionsWhile further studies testing the instrument in larger and more diverse clinical contexts are needed, INSPIRE can be considered a relevant and feasible instrument to use in supporting the development of a recovery-oriented system in Italy.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

scholarly journals Young Adults in Nature-Based Services in Norway—In-Group and Between-Group Variations Related to Mental Health Problems

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 110-133
Author(s):  
Anne Mari Steigen ◽  
Bengt Eriksson ◽  
Ragnfrid Eline Kogstad ◽  
Helge Prytz Toft ◽  
Daniel Bergh
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Young Adults ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
General Population ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Population Sample ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Local Mental Health

Young adults with mental health problems who do not attend school or work constitute a significant welfare challenge in Norway. The welfare services available to these individuals include nature-based services, which are primarily located on farms and integrate the natural and agricultural environment into their daily activities. The aim of this study is to examine young adults (16–30 years old) not attending school or work who participated in nature-based services in Norway. In particular, the study analyses mental health problems among the participants and in-group variations regarding their symptoms of mental health problems using the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSCL-10). This paper compares symptoms of mental health problems among participants in nature-based services with those of a sample from the general population and a sample of those receiving clinical in-patient mental healthcare. A questionnaire was developed for the study and was completed by 93 participants in nature-based services. The majority of these participants were recruited from the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (NAV), local mental health services, and school authorities. Results indicate that just more than half of the respondents exhibited symptoms of mental health problems based on their HSCL-10 scores. In general, they reported fewer symptoms than the clinical in-patient sample (18–30 years old) and more symptoms than the general population sample (18–19 years old). Among the participants in nature-based services, those recruited through NAV and local mental health services exhibited no differences in symptoms. Half of the participants older than 23 years in nature-based services had not completed upper secondary school. The participants, including those with symptoms of mental health problems and low expectations at the outset of their participation, generally expressed high satisfaction with the services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document