Evaluation of a Fotonovela to Increase Depression Knowledge and Reduce Stigma Among Hispanic Adults

Fotonovelas—small booklets that portray a dramatic story using photographs and captions— represent a powerful health education tool for low-literacy and ethnic minority audiences. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a depression fotonovela in increasing depression knowledge, decreasing stigma, increasing self-efficacy to recognize depression, and increasing intentions to seek treatment, relative to a text pamphlet. Hispanic adults attending a community adult school (N = 157, 47.5 % female, mean age = 35.8 years, 84 % immigrants, 63 % with less than high school education) were randomly assigned to read the fotonovela or a low-literacy text pamphlet about depression. They completed surveys before reading the material, immediately after reading the material, and 1 month later. The fotonovela and text pamphlet both produced significant improvements in depression knowledge and self-efficacy to identify depression, but the fotonovela produced significantly larger reductions in antidepressant stigma and mental health care stigma. The fotonovela also was more likely to be passed on to family or friends after the study, potentially increasing its reach throughout the community. Results indicate that fotonovelas can be useful for improving health literacy among underserved populations, which could reduce health disparities

Collaborative planning approach to inform the implementation of a healthcare manager intervention for hispanics with serious mental illness: a study protocol

Background: This study describes a collaborative planning approach that blends principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and intervention mapping to modify a healthcare manager intervention to a new patient population and provider group and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this modified intervention to improve the physical health of Hispanics with serious mental illness (SMI) and at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: The proposed study uses a multiphase approach that applies CBPR principles and intervention-mapping steps--an intervention-planning approach--to move from intervention planning to pilot testing. In phase I, a community advisory board composed of researchers and stakeholders will be assembled to learn and review the intervention and make initial modifications. Phase II uses a combination of qualitative methods--patient focus groups and stakeholder interviews--to ensure that the modifications are acceptable to all stakeholders. Phase III uses results from phase II to further modify the intervention, develop an implementation plan, and train two care managers on the modified intervention. Phase IV consists of a 12-month open pilot study (N = 30) to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the modified intervention and explore its initial effects. Lastly, phase V consists of analysis of pilot study data and preparation for future funding to develop a more rigorous evaluation of the modified intervention. Discussion: The proposed study is one of the few projects to date to focus on improving the physical health of Hispanics with SMI and at risk for CVD by using a collaborative planning approach to enhance the transportability and use of a promising healthcare manager intervention. This study illustrates how blending health-disparities research and implementation science can help reduce the disproportionate burden of medical illness in a vulnerable population

Do 'alternative' help-seeking strategies affect primary care service use? A survey of help-seeking for mental distress

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0

Self-Reported Health Status in Primary Health Care: The Influence of Immigration and Other Associated Factors

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to compare self-reported health status between Spanish-born and Latin American-born Spanish residents, adjusted by length of residence in the host country; and additionally, to analyse sociodemographic and psychosocial variables associated with a better health status. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional population based study of Latin American-born (n = 691) and Spanish-born (n = 903) in 15 urban primary health care centres in Madrid (Spain), carried out between 2007 and 2009. The participants provided information, through an interview, about self-reported health status, socioeconomic characteristics, psychosocial factors and migration conditions. Descriptive and multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The Spanish-born participants reported a better health status than the Latin America-born participants (79.8% versus 69.3%, p<0.001). Different patterns of self-reported health status were observed depending on the length of residence in the host country. The proportion of immigrants with a better health status is greater in those who have been in Spain for less than five years compared to those who have stayed longer. Better health status is significantly associated with being men, under 34 years old, being Spanish-born, having a monthly incomes of over 1000 euros, and having considerable social support and low stress. CONCLUSIONS: Better self-reported health status is associated with being Spanish-born, men, under 34 years old, having an uppermiddle-socioeconomic status, adequate social support, and low stress. Additionally, length of residence in the host country is seen as a related factor in the self-reported health status of immigrants

What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Focus group studies are increasingly published in health related journals, but we know little about how researchers use this method, particularly how they determine the number of focus groups to conduct. The methodological literature commonly advises researchers to follow principles of data saturation, although practical advise on how to do this is lacking. Our objectives were firstly, to describe the current status of sample size in focus group studies reported in health journals. Secondly, to assess whether and how researchers explain the number of focus groups they carry out.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for studies that had used focus groups and that had been published in open access journals during 2008, and extracted data on the number of focus groups and on any explanation authors gave for this number. We also did a qualitative assessment of the papers with regard to how number of groups was explained and discussed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 220 papers published in 117 journals. In these papers insufficient reporting of sample sizes was common. The number of focus groups conducted varied greatly (mean 8.4, median 5, range 1 to 96). Thirty seven (17%) studies attempted to explain the number of groups. Six studies referred to rules of thumb in the literature, three stated that they were unable to organize more groups for practical reasons, while 28 studies stated that they had reached a point of saturation. Among those stating that they had reached a point of saturation, several appeared not to have followed principles from grounded theory where data collection and analysis is an iterative process until saturation is reached. Studies with high numbers of focus groups did not offer explanations for number of groups. Too much data as a study weakness was not an issue discussed in any of the reviewed papers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Based on these findings we suggest that journals adopt more stringent requirements for focus group method reporting. The often poor and inconsistent reporting seen in these studies may also reflect the lack of clear, evidence-based guidance about deciding on sample size. More empirical research is needed to develop focus group methodology.</p

How patients understand depression associated with chronic physical disease - A systematic review

Background: Clinicians are encouraged to screen people with chronic physical illness for depression. Screening alone may not improve outcomes, especially if the process is incompatible with patient beliefs. The aim of this research is to understand peoples beliefs about depression, particularly in the presence of chronic physical disease. Methods: A mixed method systematic review involving a thematic analysis of qualitative studies and quantitative studies of beliefs held by people with current depressive symptoms. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PSYCHINFO, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, UKCRN portfolio, National Research Register Archive, Clinicaltrials.gov and OpenSIGLE were searched from database inception to 31st December 2010. A narrative synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data, based initially upon illness representations and extended to include other themes not compatible with that framework. Results: A range of clinically relevant beliefs was identified from 65 studies including the difficulty in labeling depression, complex causal factors instead of the biological model, the roles of different treatments and negative views about the consequences of depression. We found other important themes less related to ideas about illness: the existence of a self-sustaining depression spiral; depression as an existential state; the ambiguous status of suicidal thinking; and the role of stigma and blame in depression. Conclusions: Approaches to detection of depression in physical illness need to be receptive to the range of beliefs held by patients. Patient beliefs have implications for engagement with depression screening