5 research outputs found
NSC32114
Cigarette on-pack messages are one of the principal vehicles for informing smokers about the risks of smoking and research has highlighted their role as a valid health communication tool. Furthermore, they have the potential to disrupt the powerful cigarette brand imagery associated with tobacco packaging. Responding to concerns within Europe that the old style on-pack messages were ineffective and the introduction of new tobacco product legislation across Europe (EU Directive 2001/37/EC), this study was conducted to explore European smokers' response to the changes. The research draws upon two main areas of health communication: the need to pre-test messages to ensure they are appropriate for their intended audience; and the increased effectiveness of targeting messages to specific segments of the population. Two main research areas were addressed. First, the extent to which the new messages were appropriate for smokers in Europe and second, the potential to provide targeted and personally relevant messages to smokers via tobacco packs. Fifty-six focus groups were conducted across seven European countries (Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden and the UK) with 17-64-year-old smokers, half of whom were not thinking about quitting (pre-contemplators) and half of whom were thinking of quitting in the next 6 months (contemplators and preparers). Implications for future labelling practices within Europe are discussed
Recommended from our members
Anticipated and experienced stigma and discrimination in the workplace among individuals with major depressive disorder in 35 countries: qualitative framework analysis of a mixed-method cross-sectional study.
Peer reviewed: TrueOBJECTIVES: Workplace stigmatisation and discrimination are significant barriers to accessing employment opportunities, reintegration and promotion in the workforce for people with mental illnesses in comparison to other disabilities. This paper presents qualitative evidence of anticipated and experienced workplace stigma and discrimination among individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) in 35 countries, and how these experiences differ across countries based on their Human Development Index (HDI) level. DESIGN: Mixed-method cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING AND MEASURES: The qualitative data were gathered as part of the combined European Union Anti-Stigma Programme European Network and global International Study of Discrimination and Stigma Outcomes for Depression studies examining stigma and discrimination among individuals with MDD across 35 countries. Anticipated and experienced stigma and discrimination were assessed using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale version 12 (DISC-12). This study used responses to the open-ended DISC-12 questions related to employment. Data were analysed using the framework analysis method. RESULTS: The framework analysis of qualitative data of 141 participants identified 6 key 'frames' exploring (1) participants reported experiences of workplace stigma and discrimination; (2) impact of experienced workplace stigma and discrimination; (3) anticipated workplace stigma and discrimination; (4) ways of coping; (5) positive work experiences and (6) contextualisation of workplace stigma and discrimination. In general, participants from very high HDI countries reported higher levels of anticipated and experienced discrimination than other HDI groups (eg, less understanding and support, being more avoided/shunned, stopping themselves from looking for work because of expectation and fear of discrimination). Furthermore, participants from medium/low HDI countries were more likely to report positive workplace experiences. CONCLUSIONS: This study makes a significant contribution towards workplace stigma and discrimination among individuals with MDD, still an under-researched mental health diagnosis. These findings illuminate important relationships that may exist between countries/contexts and stigma and discrimination, identifying that individuals from very high HDI countries were more likely to report anticipated and experienced workplace discrimination
Changes in national rates of psychiatric beds and incarceration in Central Eastern Europe and Central Asia from 1990-2019 : A retrospective database analysis
© 2021 The Authors.Background: Numbers of psychiatric beds (general, forensic, and residential) and prison populations have been considered to be indicators of institutionalisation of people with mental illnesses. The present study aimed to assess changes of those indicators across Central Eastern Europe and Central Asia (CEECA) over the last three decades to capture how care has developed during that historical period. Methods: We retrospectively obtained data on numbers of psychiatric beds and prison populations from 30 countries in CEECA between 1990 and 2019. We calculated the median of the percent changes between the first and last available data points for all CEECA and for groups of countries based on former political alliances and income levels. Findings: Primary national data were retrieved from 25 out of 30 countries. Data from international registries were used for the remaining five countries. For all of CEECA, the median decrease of the general psychiatric bed rates was 33.8% between 1990 and 2019. Median increases were observed for forensic psychiatric beds (24.7%), residential facility beds (12.0%), and for prison populations (36.0%). Greater reductions of rates of psychiatric beds were observed in countries with lower per capita income as well as in countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Seventeen out of 30 countries showed inverse trends for general psychiatric beds and prison populations over time, indicating a possible shift of institutionalisation towards correctional settings. Interpretation: Most countries had decreased rates of general psychiatric beds, while there was an increase of forensic capacities. There was an increase in incarceration rates in a majority of countries. The large variation of changes underlines the need for policies that are informed by data and by comparisons across countries. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.publishersversionPeer reviewe