Dataset Information

Towards comprehensive mental health care: experiences and challenges of psychosocial care in Brazil.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Recommendations are in place for mental health (MH) care to be developed into a comprehensive, people-centred perspective and organised primarily through community services. In recent decades, Brazil has promoted psychiatric reform aimed at transforming the hospital-centred model into a psychosocial model of MH. However, current political and economic changes threaten this reform. This article analyses the comprehensive MH care offered by a Psychosocial Care Network (Rede de Atenção Psicossocial - RAPS) in Brazil.

Methods

The study involved semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 stakeholders (policymakers, health professionals, and MH service users) and direct observation of MH services members of the RAPS. Data were analysed using framework analysis with the following dimensions: mental health services access, long-term mental health care, comprehensive mental health care, and crisis patient care.

Results

Results indicated progression towards comprehensive MH care provision. We identified MH care provided primarily by community services, featuring an 'open door' policy, development of localised actions and a search for autonomy. Deinstitutionalisation principles and the psychosocial model support a comprehensive view of MH by policy makers, MH professionals, and users. However, difficulties in providing comprehensive care remain, with the main challenges being insufficient services offered and difficulties in user access at all levels of care, fragile integration between services, lack of clear definitions of the responsibilities of each service, discontinuity of care, limitations in family support, and fragility in crisis patient care.

Conclusion

We highlight the need to increase funding and services of RAPS, qualification of staff professional, family support, and development of strategies for integrating services. Support and expansion of MH care depend on strengthening the Brazilian health system, which is in danger of being dismantled.

SUBMITTER: Sampaio ML

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8268580 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Interpreters often play a crucial role in the health care of refugees. Although interpreters working with refugees are regularly confronted with emotionally stressful content, little is known about their work-related stress and psychological well-being. Primarily qualitative studies indicate increased emotional stress in interpreters, and difficulties in handling the traumatic content from their clients. Additionally, the working conditions of interpreters appear to be demanding, due to low payment and a lack of supervision or adequate preparation. Objective: The presented systematic review aimed to identify and summarise quantitative and qualitative research on the mental health of interpreters in the mental health care of refugees. Method: A systematic search was performed in five databases, and specific interpreting journals were searched. After removal of duplicates, 6,920 hits remained. Eligible studies included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies as well as case studies and grey literature. The studies aimed to examine mental health aspects or work experiences of spoken language interpreters in mental health care settings for adult refugees. Results: Altogether, 25 studies were identified, including six quantitative and 19 qualitative studies. Studies were analysed and presented narratively. In the analysis of the qualitative studies, three themes emerged: "Emotions, behaviour, and coping strategies," "Working in a triad," and "Working environment." In the quantitative studies, interpreters showed heightened levels of emotional stress and anxiety, and secondary traumatic stress reactions. In several qualitative studies, interpreters described a devaluing health care system and stressful working conditions with a lack of support structures. Conclusion: Overall, the results indicate a high level of stress among interpreters working with refugees. Quantitative data are sparse, and studies employ heterogeneous assessments in diverse study settings. Therefore, future quantitative research is necessary to consistently investigate interpreters' mental health in different mental health care settings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42019117948.

Project description:Little is known about how health care professionals deal with ethical challenges in mental health care, especially when not making use of a formal ethics support service. Understanding this is important in order to be able to support the professionals, to improve the quality of care, and to know in which way future ethics support services might be helpful.Within a project on ethics, coercion and psychiatry, we executed a focus group interview study at seven departments with 65 health care professionals and managers. We performed a systematic and open qualitative analysis focusing on the question: 'How do health care professionals deal with ethical challenges?' We deliberately did not present a fixed definition or theory of ethical challenge.We categorized relevant topics into three subthemes: 1) Identification and presence of ethical challenges; 2) What do the participants actually do when dealing with an ethical challenge?; and 3) The significance of facing ethical challenges. Results varied from dealing with ethical challenges every day and appreciating it as a positive part of working in mental health care, to experiencing ethical challenges as paralyzing burdens that cause a lot of stress and hinder constructive team cooperation. Some participants reported that they do not have the time and that they lack a specific methodology. Quite often, informal and retrospective ad-hoc meetings in small teams were organized. Participants struggled with what makes a challenge an ethical challenge and whether it differs from a professional challenge. When dealing with ethical challenges, a number of participants experienced difficulties handling disagreement in a constructive way. Furthermore, some participants plead for more attention for underlying intentions and justifications of treatment decisions.The interviewed health care professionals dealt with ethical challenges in many different ways, often in an informal, implicit and reactive manner. This study revealed nine different categories of what health care professionals implicitly or explicitly conceive as 'ethical challenges'. Future research should focus on how ethics support services, such as ethics reflection groups or moral case deliberation, can be of help with respect to dealing with ethical challenges and value disagreements in a constructive way.

Project description:BackgroundHealth policy in many countries directs treatment to the lowest effective care level and encourages collaboration between primary and specialist mental health care. A number of models for collaborative care have been developed, and patient benefits are being reported. Less is known about what enables and prevents implementation and sustainability of such models regarding the actions and attitudes of stakeholders on the ground. This article reports from a qualitative sub-study of a cluster-RCT testing a model for collaborative care in Oslo, Norway. The model involved the placement of psychologists and psychiatrists from a community mental health centre in each intervention GP practice. GPs could seek their input or advice when needed and refer patients to them for assessment (including assessment of the need for external services) or treatment.MethodsWe conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with GPs (n = 7), CMHC specialists (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) in the intervention arm. Sample specific topic guides were used to investigate the experience of enablers and barriers to the collaborative care model. Data were subject to stepwise deductive-inductive thematic analysis.ResultsParticipants reported positive experiences of how the model improved accessibility. First, co-location made GPs and CMHC specialists accessible to each other and facilitated detailed, patient-centred case collaboration and learning through complementary skills. The threshold for patients' access to specialist care was lowered, treatment could commence early, and throughput increased. Treatment episodes were brief (usually 5-10 sessions) and this was too brief according to some patients. Second, having experienced mental health specialists in the team and on the front line enabled early assessment of symptoms and of the type of treatment and service that patients required and were entitled to, and who could be treated at the GP practice. This improved both care pathways and referral practices. Barriers revolved around the organisation of care. Logistical issues could be tricky but were worked out. The biggest obstacle was the funding of health care at a structural level, which led to economic losses for both the GP practices and the CMHC, making the model unsustainable.ConclusionsParticipants identified a range of benefits of collaborative care for both patients and services. However, the funding system in effect penalises collaborative work. It is difficult to see how policy aiming for successful, sustainable collaboration can be achieved without governments changing funding structures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624829.