Mental illness research in the Gulf Cooperation Council: a scoping review

Rapid growth and development in recent decades has seen mental health and mental illness emerge as priority health concerns for the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates). As a result, mental health services in the region are being redefined and expanded. However, there is a paucity of local research to guide ongoing service development. Local research is important because service users’ experience of mental illness and mental health services are linked to their sociocultural context. In order for service development to be most effective, there is a need for increased understanding of the people who use these services. This article aims to review and synthesize mental health research from the Gulf Cooperation Council. It also seeks to identify gaps in the literature and suggest directions for future research. A scoping framework was used to conduct this review. To identify studies, database searches were undertaken, regional journals were hand-searched, and reference lists of included articles were examined. Empirical studies undertaken in the Gulf Cooperation Council that reported mental health service users’ experience of mental illness were included. Framework analysis was used to synthesize results. Fifty-five studies met inclusion criteria and the following themes were identified: service preferences, illness (symptomology, perceived cause, impact), and recovery (traditional healing, family support, religion). Gaps included contradictory findings related to the supportive role of the Arabic extended family and religion, under-representation of women in study samples, and limited attention on illness management outside of the hospital setting. From this review, it is clear that the sociocultural context in the region is linked to service users’ experience of mental illness. Future research that aims to fill the identified gaps and develop and test culturally appropriate interventions will aid practice and policy development in the region

Defining Quality of Life in the Children of Parents with Severe Mental Illness: A Preliminary Stakeholder-Led Model

Severe parental mental illness poses a challenge to quality of life (QoL) in a substantial number of children and adolescents, and improving the lives of these children is of urgent political and public health concern. This study used a bottom-up qualitative approach to develop a new stakeholder-led model of quality of life relevant to this population. Qualitative data were collected from 19 individuals participating in focus groups or individual interviews. Participants comprised 8 clinical academics, health and social care professionals or voluntary agency representatives; 5 parents and 6 young people (aged 13–18 yrs) with lived experience of severe parental mental illness. Data underwent inductive thematic analysis for the purposes of informing a population-specific quality of life model. Fifty nine individual themes were identified and grouped into 11 key ‘meta-themes’. Mapping each meta-theme against existing child-centred quality of life concepts revealed a multi-dimensional model that endorsed, to a greater or lesser degree, the core domains of generic quality of life models. Three new population-specific priorities were also observed: i) the alleviation of parental mental health symptoms, ii) improved problem-based coping skills and iii) increased mental health literacy. The identification of these priorities raises questions regarding the validity of generic quality of life measures to monitor the effectiveness of services for families and children affected by severe mental illness. New, age-appropriate instruments that better reflect the life priorities and unique challenges faced by the children of parents with severe mental illness may need to be developed. Challenges then remain in augmenting and adapting service design and delivery mechanisms better to meet these needs. Future child and adult mental health services need to work seamlessly alongside statutory education and social care services and a growing number of relevant third sector providers to address fully the quality of life priorities of these vulnerable families

NHS England's confusion over mental health makes us fearful.

A key recommendation of the Francis report was for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to review the evidence base for safe nurse staffing levels across care settings in England

What do we know about the risks for young people moving into, through and out of inpatient mental health care? Findings from an evidence synthesis.

Background Young people with complex or severe mental health needs sometimes require care and treatment in inpatient settings. There are risks for young people in this care context, and this study addressed the question: ‘What is known about the identification, assessment and management of risk in young people (aged 11–18) with complex mental health needs entering, using and exiting inpatient child and adolescent mental health services in the UK?’ Methods In phase 1 a scoping search of two electronic databases (MEDLINE and PsychINFO) was undertaken. Items included were themed and presented to members of a stakeholder advisory group, who were asked to help prioritise the focus for phase 2. In phase 2, 17 electronic databases (EconLit; ASSIA; BNI; Cochrane Library; CINAHL; ERIC; EMBASE; HMIC; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; Scopus; Social Care Online; Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; OpenGrey; TRiP; and Web of Science) were searched. Websites were explored and a call for evidence was circulated to locate items related to the risks to young people in mental health hospitals relating to ‘dislocation’ and ‘contagion’. All types of evidence including research, policies and service and practice responses relating to outcomes, views and experiences, costs and cost-effectiveness were considered. Materials identified were narratively synthesised. Results In phase 1, 4539 citations were found and 124 items included. Most were concerned with clinical risks. In phase 2, 15,662 citations were found, and 40 addressing the risks of ‘dislocation’ and ‘contagion’ were included supplemented by 20 policy and guidance documents. The quality of studies varied. Materials were synthesised using the categories: Dislocation: Normal Life; Dislocation: Identity; Dislocation: Friends; Dislocation: Stigma; Dislocation: Education; Dislocation: Families; and Contagion. No studies included an economic analysis. Although we found evidence of consideration of risk to young people in these areas we found little evidence to improve practice and services. Conclusions The importance to stakeholders of the risks of ‘dislocation’ and ‘contagion’ contrasted with the limited quantity and quality of evidence to inform policy, services and practice. The risks of dislocation and contagion are important, but new research is needed to inform how staff might identify, assess and manage them