Knowledge and Use of Novel Psychoactive Substances in an Italian Sample with Substance Use Disorders

This study aims to determine prevalence and frequency of use of novel psychoactive substances (NPS) and to identify the factors associated with NPS use in an Italian sample of patients diagnosed with substance use disorder (SUD). Prevalence and correlates of NPS knowledge and use were assessed in 185 patients with SUD in three addiction services (Padova, Belluno, Feltre) in the Veneto region with an ad-hoc designed survey. Two thirds of the samples reported knowing NPS and one third reported using them. NPS were considered by them less dangerous than “regular” substances of abuse (t = 6.06 mean 0.78, p < 0.001). Factors associated with NPS use were youth (OR = 4.81; p < 0.001), studentship (OR = 4.99; p = 0.004), subsequent mental disorders diagnosis (OR = 2.49; p = 0.027), suicide attempt history (OR = 11.67; p < 0.001), home detention (OR = 2.30; p = 0.040), residential care (OR = 5.66; p = 0.002), and polysubstance abuse (t = 8.99 mean 2.65 p < 0.001). NPS use in patients with SUD is highly prevalent, particularly in the youngest age group, and associated with psychiatric comorbidity and worse prognosis. It is crucial to systematically assess NPS use and inform addiction service users with SUD of the toxic and potentially lethal side effects. Mental healthcare professionals working in addiction services should receive education and training. Cohort and longitudinal studies are needed.

Measuring personal recovery in a low-intensity community mental healthcare setting: validation of the Dutch version of the individual recovery outcomes counter (I.ROC)

Background Measuring progress in treatment is essential for systematic evaluation by service users and their care providers. In low-intensity community mental healthcare, a questionnaire to measure progress in treatment should be aimed at personal recovery and should require little effort to complete. Methods The Individual Recovery Outcome Counter (I.ROC) was translated from English into Dutch, and psychometric evaluations were performed. Data were collected on personal recovery (Recovery Assessment Scale), quality of life (Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life), and symptoms of mental illness and social functioning (Outcome Questionnaire, OQ-45) for assessing the validity of the I.ROC. Test–retest reliability was evaluated by calculating the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient and internal consistency was evaluated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine construct validity. To assess convergent validity, the I.ROC was compared to relevant questionnaires by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients. To evaluate discriminant validity, I.ROC scores of certain subgroups were compared using either a t-test or analysis of variance. Results There were 764 participants in this study who mostly completed more than one I.ROC (total n = 2,863). The I.ROC aimed to measure the concept of personal recovery as a whole, which was confirmed by a factor analysis. The test–retest reliability was satisfactory (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient is 0.856), as were the internal consistency (Cronbachs Alpha is 0.921) and the convergent validity. Sensitivity to change was small, but comparable to that of the OQ-45. Conclusions The Dutch version of the I.ROC appears to have satisfactory psychometric properties to warrant its use in daily practice. Discriminant validity and sensitivity to change need further research.

Refugees’ Agency: On Resistance, Resilience, and Resources

This study set out to answer the question ‘Which kinds of agency do refugees perform when dealing with mental health problems of themselves and their children?’. Aiming to gain more insight in why it seems harder for refugee parents and minors than for the native population to talk to health professionals about their mental health and wellbeing, we combined two theoretical notions of agency to investigate a broad spectrum of informants’ behaviour. We conducted 25 interviews with 30 refugees from 8 countries (Syria, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Armenia, Eritrea, Turkish Kurdistan, Vietnam), whose Dutch residence permit varied from 26 years to less than one year. Data were analysed through open and axial coding, followed by pattern analyses. Although sometimes refugees seek (mental) healthcare, at other times they show agency by doing ‘nothing’ or by deliberately using distracting activities to deal with severe stress. Making use of resources available to them, oftentimes refugees show agency in ways that are less visible to healthcare professionals, by surviving, showing resilience, and suffering. In these cases, we think healthcare for refugees should intervene in a non-medical way, e.g., by supporting them to obtain resources that help refugees to (re)gain agency.

Alternative medicine under the Mental Health Care Act, 2017: Future implications and concerns

In recent years, the Indian government has been promoting healthcare with an insufficient evidence base, or which is non-evidence-based, alongside delivery of evidence-based care by untrained practitioners, through supportive legislation and guidelines. The Mental Health Care Act, 2017, is a unique example of a law endorsing such practices. In this paper, we aim to highlight the positive and negative implications of such practices for the delivery of good quality mental healthcare in India.

Substantial Impact of COVID-19 on Self-Reported Mental Health of Healthcare Professionals in the Netherlands

Initially, the COVID-19 pandemic caused a continued pressure on professionals working in hospitals due to the increase of affected patients. At the moment, the pandemic continues but thanks to all kinds of measures (e.g., social distancing) workload seems to decrease at the hospitals. On the contrary, patients with long-lasting symptoms due to COVID-19 infection or the pandemic begin to merge at the mental healthcare institutions in the Netherlands but this also holds true for other countries. Furthermore, healthcare professionals are affected by safety measures such as working from home, which led to an increased feeling of stress and may have led to a misbalance in work and private life. As a result, the question whether healthcare employees in mental healthcare experience impaired mental health remains unclear and chances are fair that mental health problems such as exhaustion and burnout may be prevalent. This study describes an online survey in which mental health amongst mental healthcare professionals is investigated. About 1,300 professionals from a large number of mental healthcare institutions replied the survey. Around 50% of the respondents experienced increased levels of stress. Feelings of anxiety, anger, and sadness were also increasingly experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, 4.2% replied that they were considering resigning their jobs which is alarming considering the shortage of healthcare professionals in mental healthcare institutions. The results support the importance of treatment or support of professionals in mental healthcare that experience psychological ailments.

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

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.

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

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.

The post COVID-19 healthcare landscape and the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics for individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder: the importance of an integrated collaborative-care approach

Background Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are an essential maintenance treatment option for individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BP-I). This report summarizes a roundtable discussion on the impact of COVID-19 on the mental healthcare landscape and use of LAIs for individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I. Methods Ten experts and stakeholders from diverse fields of healthcare participated in a roundtable discussion on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment challenges, and gaps in healthcare for individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I, informed by a literature search. Results Individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and increased risk of mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis. LAI prescriptions decreased early on in the pandemic, driven by a decrease in face-to-face consultations. Mental healthcare services are adapting with increased use of telehealth and home-based treatment. Clinical workflows to provide consistent, in-person LAI services include screening for COVID-19 exposure and infection, minimizing contact, and ensuring mask-wearing by individuals and staff. The importance of continued in-person visits for LAIs needs to be discussed so that staff can share that information with patients, their caregivers, and families. A fully integrated, collaborative-care model is the most important aspect of care for individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of a fully integrated collaborative-care model to ensure regular, routine healthcare contact and access to prescribed treatments and services for individuals with schizophrenia and BP-I.