Dissociative Disorders: Between Neurosis and Psychosis

Dissociative disorders are a set of disorders defined by a disturbance affecting functions that are normally integrated with a prevalence of 2.4 percent in industrialised countries. These disorders are often poorly diagnosed or misdiagnosed because of sharing common clinical features with psychotic disorders, but requiring a very different trajectory of care. Repeated clinical situations in a crisis centre in Geneva provided us with a critical overview of current evidence of knowledge in clinical and etiopathological field about dissociative disorders. Because of their multiple expressions and the overlap with psychotic disorders, we focused on the clinical aspects using three different situations to better understand their specificity and to extend our thinking to the relevance of terms “neurosis” and “psychosis.” Finally, we hope that this work might help physicians and psychiatrists to become more aware of this complex set of disorders while making a diagnosis

Factors associated with quality of services for marginalized groups with mental health problems in 14 European countries

This research was financially supported by DG-Sanco (contract: 800197; 2007-2010). The authors would like to thank all of the professionals and services who participated in the PROMO assessment of services. A PhD grant from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia–Portugal (SFRH/BD/66388/2009) to the first author is acknowledged

Mental health care for irregular migrants in Europe: Barriers and how they are overcome

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Health care for irregular migrants: pragmatism across Europe. A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health services in Europe face the challenge of delivering care to a heterogeneous group of irregular migrants (IM). There is little empirical evidence on how health professionals cope with this challenge. This study explores the experiences of health professionals providing care to IM in three types of health care service across 16 European countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals in 144 primary care services, 48 mental health services, and 48 Accident & Emergency departments (total n = 240). Although legal health care entitlement for IM varies across countries, health professionals reported facing similar issues when caring for IM. These issues include access problems, limited communication, and associated legal complications. Differences in the experiences with IM across the three types of services were also explored. Respondents from Accident & Emergency departments reported less of a difference between the care for IM patients and patients in a regular situation than did respondents from primary care and mental health services. Primary care services and mental health services were more concerned with language barriers than Accident & Emergency departments. Notifying the authorities was an uncommon practice, even in countries where health professionals are required to do this.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The needs of IM patients and the values of the staff appear to be as important as the national legal framework, with staff in different European countries adopting a similar pragmatic approach to delivering health care to IM. While legislation might help to improve health care for IM, more appropriate organisation and local flexibility are equally important, especially for improving access and care pathways.</p

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment adherence in migrants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) is a growing concern in meeting global targets for TB control. In high-income low-TB-incidence countries, a disproportionate number of MDR-TB cases occur in migrant (foreign-born) populations, with concerns about low adherence rates in these patients compared to the host non-migrant population. Tackling MDR-TB in this context may, therefore, require unique approaches. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data on MDR-TB treatment adherence in migrant patients to inform evidence-based strategies to improve care pathways and health outcomes in this group. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in line with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO 42017070756). The databases Embase, MEDLINE, Global Health and PubMed were searched to 24 May 2017 for primary research reporting MDR-TB treatment adherence and outcomes in migrant populations, with no restrictions on dates or language. A meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: From 413 papers identified in the database search, 15 studies reporting on MDR-TB treatment outcomes for 258 migrants and 174 non-migrants were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The estimated rate of adherence to MDR-TB treatment across migrant patients was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 58-84%], with non-adherence reported among 20% (95% CI = 4-37%) of migrant patients. A key finding was that there were no differences in estimated rates of adherence [risk ratio (RR) = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.82-1.34] or non-adherence (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.79-1.36) between migrants and non-migrants. CONCLUSIONS: MDR-TB treatment adherence rates among migrants in high-income low-TB-incidence countries are approaching global targets for treatment success (75%), and are comparable to rates in non-migrants. The findings highlight that only just over 70% of migrant and non-migrant patients adhere to MDR-TB treatment. The results point to the importance of increasing adherence in all patient groups, including migrants, with an emphasis on tailoring care based on social risk factors for poor adherence. We believe that MDR-TB treatment targets are not ambitious enough