Predicting disclosure and help-seeking in university students with psychosocial problems based on stigma and attitudes towards disclosure and help-seeking

Despite high prevalence of mental health problems among university students, there’s a gap between the need for help and the actual treatment received. This study investigated disclosure on distress and hazardous alcohol use and help-seeking behavior in a sample of 1,791 students of a Dutch university of applied sciences. Students’ perceived public and personal stigma, and attitudes towards disclosure and help-seeking were assessed as possible predictors of disclosure and help-seeking behavior. Results of the analysis of variance and logistic regression analysis indicated that perceived public and personal stigma did not predict disclosure and helpseeking behavior, but that attitudes towards disclosure and help-seeking did. Students with both distress and hazardous alcohol use have the least tendency to disclose their problems to family, friends or classmates, but at the same time they do tend to seek help. Disclosure and seeking help for mental health challenges are health promoting competencies that seem to need more attention in university students. Although further research needs to validate these findings, it is recommended to promote disclosure and help-seeking among students by investing in mental health literacy programs, to educate students about mental health issues, raise awareness on available mental health services and their potential benefits

Verkenning effectief alcoholbeleid op het hoger onderwijs:Hoe kan effectief alcoholbeleid op het HO er uit zien en hoe kan het geïmplementeerd worden?

Deze handreiking is tot stand gekomen in opdracht van de Vereniging van Samenwerkende Universiteiten (VSNU), de Vereniging Hogescholen (VH) en het ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport (VWS). De uitvoering betreft een samenwerking tussen het Trimbos-instituut en Tranzo, wetenschappelijk centrum voor zorg en welzijn van Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences van Tilburg University. Deze handreiking biedt universiteiten en hogescholen ondersteuning bij het ontwikkelen en implementeren van een effectief alcoholbeleid. De handreiking vormt een aanvulling op de Infosheets Alcoholbeleid Hoger Onderwijs, die in 2018 door het Trimbos-instituut werden gepubliceerd. Leeswijzer Dit rapport is als volgt opgebouwd: na de inleiding volgt meteen het hoofdstuk met handvatten voor het opstellen en implementeren van een alcoholbeleid hoger onderwijs. Hierin zijn concrete aanwijzingen opgenomen die voorvloeien uit de interviews en de literatuurstudie. De bijlagen beschrijven meer in detail de resultaten van de interviews en de literatuurstudie

Interdisciplinary collaboration in the treatment of alcohol use disorders in a general hospital department:A mixed-method study

Background !nterdisciplinary collaborations (i.e., where various disciplines work coordinated and interdependently toward shared goals) are stated to yield higher team effectiveness than multidisciplinary approaches (i.e., where various disciplines work in parallel within their professional boundaries) in somatic health care settings. Nevertheless, research is lacking on interdisciplinary approaches for alcohol use disorder (AUD) treatment of hospitalized patients as these types of approaches are still uncommon. This study aims to evaluate an innovative interdisciplinary AUD treatment initiative at a general hospital department by 1) identifying which and to what extent network partners are involved and 2) to explore how network partners experienced the interdisciplinary collaboration. Methods A mixed-method study was conducted, using 1) measures of contact frequency and closeness in a social network analysis and 2) semi-structured interviews, which were analyzed thematically. Respondents were network partners of an interdisciplinary collaboration in a general hospital department, initially recruited by the collaborations' project leader. Results The social network analysis identified 16 network partners, including a 'core' network with five central network partners from both inside and outside the hospital. The project leader played an important central role in the network and the resident gastroenterologist seemed to have a vulnerable connection within the network. Closeness between network partners was experienced regardless of frequency of contact, although this was especially true for the 'core' group that (almost) always consisted of the same network partners that were present at biweekly meetings. Interview data showed that presence of the 'core' network partners was reported crucial for an efficient collaboration. Respondents desired knowledge about the collaborations' effectiveness, and one structured protocol with working procedures, division of responsibilities and agreements on information sharing and feedback. Conclusions The design of this interdisciplinary collaboration has potential in improving the treatment of hospital patients with AUD and was evaluated positively by the involved network partners. Interdisciplinary collaborations may offer a critical solution to increase treatment rates of patients with AUD and should be adopted in hospitals on a larger scale. Research towards the effectiveness of interdisciplinary collaborations in the treatment of hospitalized patients with AUD is needed. A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-022-00492-

The politicisation of evaluation: constructing and contesting EU policy performance

Although systematic policy evaluation has been conducted for decades and has been growing strongly within the European Union (EU) institutions and in the member states, it remains largely underexplored in political science literatures. Extant work in political science and public policy typically focuses on elements such as agenda setting, policy shaping, decision making, or implementation rather than evaluation. Although individual pieces of research on evaluation in the EU have started to emerge, most often regarding policy “effectiveness” (one criterion among many in evaluation), a more structured approach is currently missing. This special issue aims to address this gap in political science by focusing on four key focal points: evaluation institutions (including rules and cultures), evaluation actors and interests (including competencies, power, roles and tasks), evaluation design (including research methods and theories, and their impact on policy design and legislation), and finally, evaluation purpose and use (including the relationships between discourse and scientific evidence, political attitudes and strategic use). The special issue considers how each of these elements contributes to an evolving governance system in the EU, where evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in decision making