Anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illness has been linked to poorer physical and mental health outcomes. Additionally, anticipation of discrimination may lead some individuals to avoid participation in particular life areas, leading to greater isolation and social marginalisation. This study aimed to establish the levels and clinical and socio-demographic associations of anticipated and experienced discrimination amongst those diagnosed with a schizophrenia and comparator severe mental illnesses (bipolar and major depressive disorders). METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis of anticipated and experienced discrimination from 202 individuals in South London (47% with schizophrenia, 32% with depression and 20% with bipolar disorder). RESULTS: 93% of the sample anticipated discrimination and 87% of participants had experienced discrimination in at least one area of life in the previous year. There was a significant association between the anticipation and the experience of discrimination. Higher levels of experienced discrimination were reported by those of a mixed ethnicity, and those with higher levels of education. Women anticipated more discrimination than men. Neither diagnosis nor levels of functioning were associated with the extent of discrimination. Clinical symptoms of anxiety, depression and suspiciousness were associated with more experienced and anticipated discrimination respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The unfair treatment of individuals with severe mental illnesses remains unacceptably common. Population level interventions are needed to reduce levels of discrimination and to safeguard individuals. Interventions are also required to assist those with severe mental illness to reduce internalised stigma and social avoidance

Promotion, prevention and protection: interventions at the population- and community-levels for mental, neurological and substance use disorders in low- and middle-income countries

Background In addition to services within the health system, interventions at the population and community levels are also important for the promotion of mental health, primary prevention of mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders, identification and case detection of MNS disorders; and to a lesser degree treatment, care and rehabilitation. This study aims to identify “best practice” and “good practice” interventions that can feasibly be delivered at these population- and community-levels in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to aid the identification of resource efficiencies and allocation in LMICs. Methods A narrative review was conducted given the wide range of relevant interventions. Expert consensus was used to identify “best practice” at the population-level on the basis of existing quasi-experimental natural experiments and cost effectiveness, with small scale emerging and promising evidence comprising “good practice”. At the community-level, using expert consensus, the ACE (Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Prevention Project) grading system was used to differentiate “best practice” interventions with sufficient evidence from “good practice” interventions with limited but promising evidence. ResultsAt the population-level, laws and regulations to control alcohol demand and restrict access to lethal means of suicide were considered “best practice”. Child protection laws, improved control of neurocysticercosis and mass awareness campaigns were identified as “good practice”. At the community level, socio-emotional learning programmes in schools and parenting programmes during infancy were identified as “best practice”. The following were all identified as “good practice”: Integrating mental health promotion strategies into workplace occupational health and safety policies; mental health information and awareness programmes as well as detection of MNS disorders in schools; early child enrichment/preschool educational programs and parenting programs for children aged 2–14 years; gender equity and/or economic empowerment programs for vulnerable groups; training of gatekeepers to identify people with MNS disorders in the community; and training non-specialist community members at a neighbourhood level to assist with community-based support and rehabilitation of people with mental disorders. Conclusion Interventions provided at the population- and community-levels have an important role to play in promoting mental health, preventing the onset, and protecting those with MNS disorders. The importance of inter-sectoral enga

Diverse definitions of the early course of schizophrenia - a targeted literature review

Schizophrenia is a debilitating psychiatric disorder and patients experience significant comorbidity, especially cognitive and psychosocial deficits, already at the onset of disease. Previous research suggests that treatment during the earlier stages of disease reduces disease burden, and that a longer time of untreated psychosis has a negative impact on treatment outcomes. A targeted literature review was conducted to gain insight into the definitions currently used to describe patients with a recent diagnosis of schizophrenia in the early course of disease ('early' schizophrenia). A total of 483 relevant English-language publications of clinical guidelines and studies were identified for inclusion after searches of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, relevant clinical trial databases and Google for records published between January 2005 and October 2015. The extracted data revealed a wide variety of terminology and definitions used to describe patients with 'early' or 'recent-onset' schizophrenia, with no apparent consensus. The most commonly used criteria to define patients with early schizophrenia included experience of their first episode of schizophrenia or disease duration of less than 1, 2 or 5 years. These varied definitions likely result in substantial disparities of patient populations between studies and variable population heterogeneity. Better agreement on the definition of early schizophrenia could aid interpretation and comparison of studies in this patient population and consensus on definitions should allow for better identification and management of schizophrenia patients in the early course of their disease

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM