Typology of adults diagnosed with mental disorders based on socio-demographics and clinical and service use characteristics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mental disorder is a leading cause of morbidity worldwide. Its cost and negative impact on productivity are substantial. Consequently, improving mental health-care system efficiency - especially service utilisation - is a priority. Few studies have explored the use of services by specific subgroups of persons with mental disorder; a better understanding of these individuals is key to improving service planning. This study develops a typology of individuals, diagnosed with mental disorder in a 12-month period, based on their individual characteristics and use of services within a Canadian urban catchment area of 258,000 persons served by a psychiatric hospital.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>From among the 2,443 people who took part in the survey, 406 (17%) experienced at least one episode of mental disorder (as per the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)) in the 12 months pre-interview. These individuals were selected for cluster analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Analysis yielded four user clusters: people who experienced mainly anxiety disorder; depressive disorder; alcohol and/or drug disorder; and multiple mental and dependence disorder. Two clusters were more closely associated with females and anxiety or depressive disorders. In the two other clusters, males were over-represented compared with the sample as a whole, namely, substance abuses with or without concomitant mental disorder. Clusters with the greatest number of mental disorders per subject used a greater number of mental health-care services. Conversely, clusters associated exclusively with dependence disorders used few services.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study found considerable heterogeneity among socio-demographic characteristics, number of disorders, and number of health-care services used by individuals with mental or dependence disorders. Cluster analysis revealed important differences in service use with regard to gender and age. It reinforces the relevance of developing targeted programs for subgroups of individuals with mental and/or dependence disorders. Strategies aimed at changing low service users' attitude (youths and males) or instituting specialised programs for that particular clientele should be promoted. Finally, as concomitant disorders are frequent among individuals with mental disorder, psychological services and/or addiction programs must be prioritised as components of integrated services when planning treatment.</p

Professional Service Utilisation among Patients with Severe Mental Disorders

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Generally, patients with serious mental disorders (SMD) are frequent users of services who generate high care-related costs. Current reforms aim to increase service integration and primary care for improved patient care and health-care efficiency. This article identifies and compares variables associated with the use by patients with SMD of services offered by psychiatrists, case managers, and general practitioners (GPs). It also compares frequent and infrequent service use.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>One hundred forty patients with SMD from five regions in Quebec, Canada, were interviewed on their use of services in the previous year. Patients were also required to complete a questionnaire on needs-assessment. In addition, data were collected from clinical records. Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most patients used services from psychiatrists and case managers, but no more than half consulted GPs. Most patients were followed at least by two professionals, chiefly psychiatrists and case managers. Care access, continuity of care, and total help received were the most important variables associated with the different types of professional consultation. These variables were also associated with frequent use of professional service, as compared with infrequent service use. In all, enabling factors rather than need factors were the core predictors of frequency of service utilisation by patients with SMD.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study reveals that health care system organisation and professional practice - rather than patient need profiles - are the core predictors of professional consultation by patients with SMD. The homogeneity of our study population, i.e. mainly users with schizophrenia, recently discharged from hospital, may partly account for these results. Our findings also underscored the limited involvement of GPs in this patient population's care. As comorbidity is often associated with serious mental disorders, closer follow-up by GPs is needed. Globally, more effort should be directed at increasing shared-care initiatives, which would enhance coordination among psychiatrists, GPs, and psychosocial teams (including case managers). Finally, there is a need to increase awareness among health care providers, especially GPs, of the level of care required by patients with disabling and serious mental disorders.</p

What should an ideal spinal injury classification system consist of? A methodological review and conceptual proposal for future classifications

Since Böhler published the first categorization of spinal injuries based on plain radiographic examinations in 1929, numerous classifications have been proposed. Despite all these efforts, however, only a few have been tested for reliability and validity. This methodological, conceptual review summarizes that a spinal injury classification system should be clinically relevant, reliable and accurate. The clinical relevance of a classification is directly related to its content validity. The ideal content of a spinal injury classification should only include injury characteristics of the vertebral column, is primarily based on the increasingly routinely performed CT imaging, and is clearly distinctive from severity scales and treatment algorithms. Clearly defined observation and conversion criteria are crucial determinants of classification systems’ reliability and accuracy. Ideally, two principle spinal injury characteristics should be easy to discern on diagnostic images: the specific location and morphology of the injured spinal structure. Given the current evidence and diagnostic imaging technology, descriptions of the mechanisms of injury and ligamentous injury should not be included in a spinal injury classification. The presence of concomitant neurologic deficits can be integrated in a spinal injury severity scale, which in turn can be considered in a spinal injury treatment algorithm. Ideally, a validation pathway of a spinal injury classification system should be completed prior to its clinical and scientific implementation. This review provides a methodological concept which might be considered prior to the synthesis of new or modified spinal injury classifications