Civil conflict and sleeping sickness in Africa in general and Uganda in particular

Conflict and war have long been recognized as determinants of infectious disease risk. Re-emergence of epidemic sleeping sickness in sub-Saharan Africa since the 1970s has coincided with extensive civil conflict in affected regions. Sleeping sickness incidence has placed increasing pressure on the health resources of countries already burdened by malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis. In areas of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Angola, sleeping sickness occurs in epidemic proportions, and is the first or second greatest cause of mortality in some areas, ahead of HIV/AIDS. In Uganda, there is evidence of increasing spread and establishment of new foci in central districts. Conflict is an important determinant of sleeping sickness outbreaks, and has contributed to disease resurgence. This paper presents a review and characterization of the processes by which conflict has contributed to the occurrence of sleeping sickness in Africa. Conflict contributes to disease risk by affecting the transmission potential of sleeping sickness via economic impacts, degradation of health systems and services, internal displacement of populations, regional insecurity, and reduced access for humanitarian support. Particular focus is given to the case of sleeping sickness in south-eastern Uganda, where incidence increase is expected to continue. Disease intervention is constrained in regions with high insecurity; in these areas, political stabilization, localized deployment of health resources, increased administrative integration and national capacity are required to mitigate incidence. Conflict-related variables should be explicitly integrated into risk mapping and prioritization of targeted sleeping sickness research and mitigation initiatives

Usual Primary Care Provider Characteristics of a Patient-Centered Medical Home and Mental Health Service Use

BACKGROUND: The benefits of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) over and above that of a usual source of medical care have yet to be determined, particularly for adults with mental health disorders. OBJECTIVE: To examine qualities of a usual provider that align with PCMH goals of access, comprehensiveness, and patient-centered care, and to determine whether PCMH qualities in a usual provider are associated with the use of mental health services (MHS). DESIGN: Using national data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we conducted a lagged cross-sectional study of MHS use subsequent to participant reports of psychological distress and usual provider and practice characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2,358 adults, aged 18–64 years, met the criteria for serious psychological distress and reported on their usual provider and practice characteristics. MAIN MEASURES: We defined “usual provider” as a primary care provider/practice, and “PCMH provider” as a usual provider that delivered accessible, comprehensive, patient-centered care as determined by patient self-reporting. The dependent variable, MHS, included self-reported mental health visits to a primary care provider or mental health specialist, counseling, and psychiatric medication treatment over a period of 1 year. RESULTS: Participants with a usual provider were significantly more likely than those with no usual provider to have experienced a primary care mental health visit (marginal effect [ME] = 8.5, 95 % CI = 3.2–13.8) and to have received psychiatric medication (ME = 15.5, 95 % CI = 9.4–21.5). Participants with a PCMH were additionally more likely than those with no usual provider to visit a mental health specialist (ME = 7.6, 95 % CI = 0.7–14.4) and receive mental health counseling (ME = 8.5, 95 % CI = 1.5–15.6). Among those who reported having had any type of mental health visit, participants with a PCMH were more likely to have received mental health counseling than those with only a usual provider (ME = 10.0, 95 % CI = 1.0–19.0). CONCLUSIONS: Access to a usual provider is associated with increased receipt of needed MHS. Patients who have a usual provider with PCMH qualities are more likely to receive mental health counseling

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