What makes people decide who to turn to when faced with a mental health problem? Results from a French survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The unequal use of mental health care is a great issue, even in countries with universal health coverage. Better knowledge of the factors that have an impact on the pathway to mental health care may be a great help for designing education campaigns and for best organizing health care delivery. The objective of this study is to explore the determinants of help-seeking intentions for mental health problems and which factors influence treatment opinions and the reliance on and compliance with health professionals' advice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>441 adults aged 18 to 70 were randomly selected from the general population of two suburban districts near Paris and agreed to participate in the study (response rate = 60.4%). The 412 respondents with no mental health problems based on the CIDI-SF and the CAGE, who had not consulted for a mental health problem in the previous year, were asked in detail about their intentions to seek help in case of a psychological disorder and about their opinion of mental health treatments. The links between the respondents' characteristics and intentions and opinions were explored.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>More than half of the sample (57.8%) would see their general practitioner (GP) first and 46.6% would continue with their GP for follow-up. Mental health professionals were mentioned far less than GPs. People who would choose their GP first were older and less educated, whereas those who would favor mental health specialists had lower social support. For psychotherapy, respondents were split equally between seeing a GP, a psychiatrist or a psychologist. People were reluctant to take psychotropic drugs, but looked favorably on psychotherapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>GPs are often the point of entry into the mental health care system and need to be supported. Public information campaigns about mental health care options and treatments are needed to educate the public, eliminate the stigma of mental illness and eliminate prejudices.</p

Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol

High blood cholesterol is typically considered a feature of wealthy western countries1,2. However, dietary and behavioural determinants of blood cholesterol are changing rapidly throughout the world3 and countries are using lipid-lowering medications at varying rates. These changes can have distinct effects on the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol, which have different effects on human health4,5. However, the trends of HDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels over time have not been previously reported in a global analysis. Here we pooled 1,127 population-based studies that measured blood lipids in 102.6 million individuals aged 18 years and older to estimate trends from 1980 to 2018 in mean total, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol levels for 200 countries. Globally, there was little change in total or non-HDL cholesterol from 1980 to 2018. This was a net effect of increases in low- and middle-income countries, especially in east and southeast Asia, and decreases in high-income western countries, especially those in northwestern Europe, and in central and eastern Europe. As a result, countries with the highest level of non-HDL cholesterol—which is a marker of cardiovascular risk—changed from those in western Europe such as Belgium, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Malta in 1980 to those in Asia and the Pacific, such as Tokelau, Malaysia, The Philippines and Thailand. In 2017, high non-HDL cholesterol was responsible for an estimated 3.9 million (95% credible interval 3.7 million–4.2 million) worldwide deaths, half of which occurred in east, southeast and south Asia. The global repositioning of lipid-related risk, with non-optimal cholesterol shifting from a distinct feature of high-income countries in northwestern Europe, north America and Australasia to one that affects countries in east and southeast Asia and Oceania should motivate the use of population-based policies and personal interventions to improve nutrition and enhance access to treatment throughout the world

Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol

High blood cholesterol is typically considered a feature of wealthy western countries(1,2). However, dietary and behavioural determinants of blood cholesterol are changing rapidly throughout the world(3) and countries are using lipid-lowering medications at varying rates. These changes can have distinct effects on the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol, which have different effects on human health(4,5). However, the trends of HDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels over time have not been previously reported in a global analysis. Here we pooled 1,127 population-based studies that measured blood lipids in 102.6 million individuals aged 18 years and older to estimate trends from 1980 to 2018 in mean total, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol levels for 200 countries. Globally, there was little change in total or non-HDL cholesterol from 1980 to 2018. This was a net effect of increases in low- and middle-income countries, especially in east and southeast Asia, and decreases in high-income western countries, especially those in northwestern Europe, and in central and eastern Europe. As a result, countries with the highest level of non-HDL cholesterol-which is a marker of cardiovascular riskchanged from those in western Europe such as Belgium, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Malta in 1980 to those in Asia and the Pacific, such as Tokelau, Malaysia, The Philippines and Thailand. In 2017, high non-HDL cholesterol was responsible for an estimated 3.9 million (95% credible interval 3.7 million-4.2 million) worldwide deaths, half of which occurred in east, southeast and south Asia. The global repositioning of lipid-related risk, with non-optimal cholesterol shifting from a distinct feature of high-income countries in northwestern Europe, north America and Australasia to one that affects countries in east and southeast Asia and Oceania should motivate the use of population-based policies and personal interventions to improve nutrition and enhance access to treatment throughout the world.Peer reviewe

Repositioning of the global epicentre of non-optimal cholesterol

High blood cholesterol is typically considered a feature of wealthy western countries1,2. However, dietary and behavioural determinants of blood cholesterol are changing rapidly throughout the world3 and countries are using lipid-lowering medications at varying rates. These changes can have distinct effects on the levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol, which have different effects on human health4,5. However, the trends of HDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels over time have not been previously reported in a global analysis. Here we pooled 1,127 population-based studies that measured blood lipids in 102.6 million individuals aged 18 years and older to estimate trends from 1980 to 2018 in mean total, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol levels for 200 countries. Globally, there was little change in total or non-HDL cholesterol from 1980 to 2018. This was a net effect of increases in low- and middle-income countries, especially in east and southeast Asia, and decreases in high-income western countries, especially those in northwestern Europe, and in central and eastern Europe. As a result, countries with the highest level of non-HDL cholesterol—which is a marker of cardiovascular risk—changed from those in western Europe such as Belgium, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Malta in 1980 to those in Asia and the Pacific, such as Tokelau, Malaysia, The Philippines and Thailand. In 2017, high non-HDL cholesterol was responsible for an estimated 3.9 million (95% credible interval 3.7 million–4.2 million) worldwide deaths, half of which occurred in east, southeast and south Asia. The global repositioning of lipid-related risk, with non-optimal cholesterol shifting from a distinct feature of high-income countries in northwestern Europe, north America and Australasia to one that affects countries in east and southeast Asia and Oceania should motivate the use of population-based policies and personal interventions to improve nutrition and enhance access to treatment throughout the world.</p

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

The impulsiveness level influences the salivary cortisol response and social stress sensitivity in suicidal patients

International audienceIntroduction: Suicide attempters (SA) are more vulnerable to social stress and show disturbed cortisol response in stressful conditions compared with psychiatric and healthy controls. Recent data suggest that this dysregulation might be related to impulsivity traits. However, little is known about the emotional consequences of social stress in SA exposed to stress.Objectives: The aim of our study was to evaluate the cortisol and emotional responses to social stress in patients with depression with and without suicide attempt, by taking into account impulsivity traits and depression severity.Methods: 67 adult women (41 SA and 26 affective controls (AC,i.e. without suicide attempt history)) with lifetime history of major depressive episode were included. Patients performed the Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), a well-validated social stress task. Patients provided seven saliva samples, to measure the cortisol response, and filled in questionnaires to assess psychological pain, positive and negative mood, and anxiety at different time points (from 10 min before to 120 min after the TSST). Moderated regression models were used including suicide attempt history, depression severity, and impulsivity as independent variables and their interactions.Results: In patients with low depression and high impulsivity, salivary cortisol response during the TSST was higher in SA than in AC (p < .001). Psychological pain, negative mood, and anxiety were increased in all patients just after the TSST, followed by a decrease at 120 min. Positive mood recovery was slower in SA, and in patients with high impulsivity and low depression level (p < .001).Conclusions: Impulsivity traits have an important role in suicidal vulnerability in stress conditions. Impulsivity traits might help to differentiate patients at risk of suicide who are highly sensitive to stress when depression level is low. Higher impulsiveness may increase the sensitivity to emotional distress that translates into inadequate physiological responses

Évolution du profil des patients admis en unités neuro-vasculaires en France métropolitaine entre 2009 et 2014

International audienceIntroduction : L’accessibilite aux unités neuro-vasculaires (UNV) pour la prise en charge des accidents vasculaires cérébraux s’est considérablement développée en France grâce à la mise en œuvre du « Plan national d’action AVC 2010–2014 ». Dans ce contexte, l’objectif de notre étude est d’étudier l’évolution du profil des patients admis en UNV et celle de la létalite hospitalière précoce. Méthodes : Nous avons sélectionné les séjours relatifs à un AVC (codes I61, I63, I64 en diagnostic principal) dans la base PMSI-MCO de France métropolitaine pour la période 2009−2014. Nous avons examiné les évolutions du profil sociodémographique, de la comorbidité (index de comorbidité de Charlson, [ICC]) et de la létalite hospitalière jusqu’à sept jours en distinguant les patients admis de ceux non-admis en UNV. Résultats : Entre 2009 et 2014, le nombre d’AVC pris en charge en UNV a augmenté de 21 868 a 48 210. Bien que l’âge moyen des patients « UNV » soit resté toujours inférieur à celui des « non-UNV », son augmentation était plus importante chez les premiers (+2,5 ans contre +1 an chez les non-UNV, p Discussion/conclusion : Ces unités specialisées ont accueilli des patients plus âgés et présentant plus de comorbidités, sans que la létalite hospitalière précoce n’ait augmenté. Le devenir à moyen et long terme de ces patients mériterait d’être exploré notamment en termes de profil fonctionnel

Disparités régionales de la prise en charge des accidents en vasculaires cérébraux en 2015

International audienceIntroduction : Cette étude décrit les disparités régionales de la prise en charge hospitalière des patients présentant un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC), en court séjour, puis en soins de suite et de réadaptation (SSR). Méthodes : Les données proviennent des bases nationales 2015 des PMSI MCO et SSR. Près de 116 000 patients adultes avec code d’AVC en diagnostic principal de RSA (DP) ou d’unité médicale (DPUM) ont été inclus. Leurs passages en unité neurovasculaire (UNV) ont été étudiés, puis les hospitalisations en SSR dans le trimestre suivant l’hospitalisation initiale (patients des neuf premiers mois non décédés en MCO). Résultats : En court séjour, 47 % des patients ont été hospitalisés en UNV, soit 50,5 % pour les hémorragies cérébrales, infarctus cérébraux ou AVC de type non défini. Ce pourcentage varie selon les régions de résidence, en métropole de 30 % en PACA a 69 % (Hauts de France) et dans les DOM, de 1 % en Guyane a 59 % à La Réunion. La proportion de patients hospitalisés en SSR dans les trois mois, globalement égale à 39 %, s’élevait a 62 % en cas d’hémiplégie ou tétraplégie, avec 32 % en SSR spécialisés pour les affections du système nerveux ou de l’appareil locomoteur. Pour ces patients hémiplégiques ou tétraplégiques, le taux d’hospitalisation en SSR varie peu en métropole (entre 58 % et 67 %), mais fortement dans les DOM (de 8 % a Mayotte a 67 % en Guadeloupe) ; leurs hospitalisations en SSR neurologique ou locomoteur varient entre 25 % et 41 % en métropole et entre 2 % et 46 % dans les DOM. Discussion/conclusion : Cette étude ne concerne que la prise en charge hospitalière des patients victimes d’un AVC. Malgré l’augmentation notable du nombre d’UNV, il persiste des différences régionales des taux de passage en UNV, et de la disponibilité en lits d’UNV. Des disparités existent également pour le SSR et surtout les SSR specialisés neurologique ou locomoteur, avec la aussi des differences régionales en lits ou places