Dataset Information

Why Service Users Choose Medication-Free Psychiatric Treatment: A Mixed-Method Study of User Accounts.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Medication has been a central part of treatment for severe mental disorders in Western medicine since the 1950s. In 2015, Norwegian Health Authorities decided that Norwegian health regions must have treatment units devoted to medication-free mental health treatment to enhance service users' freedom of choice. The need for these units has been controversial. The aim of this study was to examine why service users choose medication-free services. This article examines what purpose these units serve in terms of the users' reasons for choosing this service, what is important for them to receive during the treatment, and what factors lay behind their concerns in terms of medication-related views and experiences.

Methods

Questionnaires were answered by 46 participants and 5 participants were interviewed in a mixed-method design integrated with a concurrent triangulation strategy applying thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.

Results

Negative effects of medications and unavailable alternatives to medication in ordinary health care were important reasons for wanting medication-free treatment. Medication use may conflict with personal values, attitudes, and beliefs.

Conclusion

This study broadens the understanding of why the demand for separate medication-free units has arisen. The findings may contribute to making medication-free treatment an option in mental health care in general. To this end, clinicians are advised to communicate all treatment alternatives to service users and to be mindful of the effect of power imbalances in their interactions with them.

SUBMITTER: Standal K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8315812 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Employment has been proven to be an effective recovery tool and therapeutic intervention for those with severe and enduring mental health conditions. Aside from monetary reward, employment is a means of structuring time and provides a sense of worth and achievement, which enhances self-esteem and confidence. A social identity is developed through employment, encouraging social support and increasing social networks. Securing employment can bring about improved quality of life and positive change in one's social circumstances; therefore it can reduce symptoms associated with mental illness and potentially prevent re-offending, as the individual develops a sense of independence, self-efficacy, and value. Barriers to employment exist for forensic mental health service users and therefore it is imperative that employment needs are addressed at the earliest possible stage in recovery. An evaluation of employment activities across two forensic mental health units revealed a lack of appropriate employment opportunities for service users, and those roles available were not implemented in line with recommended best practice. In response to this issue several enterprises were established to offer opportunities for service users to engage in meaningful employment and develop skills that a future employer would value. Each enterprise responds to a business need within the units to ensure sustainability of services. The enterprises are essentially micro-businesses with social objectives whose surpluses are reinvested for the purpose of increasing opportunities for service users. The enterprises are underpinned by the philosophy of the Individual Placement and Support (IPS) model; empirical evidence suggests that the IPS model is the most effective intervention, based on the 'place then train' philosophy. The model recommends a focus upon rapid job search to achieve competitive employment for those who want to work; opportunities sourced should be consistent with individual preference and benefits counselling offered. Support should be time unlimited and integrated with mental health treatment. A person-centred and strengths-based approach is also adopted to support people to build on their strengths, establish goals, and encourage motivation.

Project description:BackgroundEmergency department (ED) use is often viewed as an indicator of health system quality. ED use for mental health (MH) reasons is increasing and costly for health systems, patients, and their families. Patients with mental disorders (MD) including substance use disorders (SUD) and suicidal behaviors are high ED users. Improving ED services for these patients and their families, and developing alternatives to ED use are thus key issues. This study aimed to: (1) describe the implementation of three innovative interventions provided by a brief intervention team, crisis center team, and family-peer support team in a Quebec psychiatric ED, including the identification of implementation barriers, and (2) evaluate the impacts of these ED innovations on MH service use and response to needs.MethodUsing mixed methods with data triangulation, the implementation and impact of the three above-named ED interventions were studied. Quantitative data were collected from 101 participants (81 patients, 20 family members) using a user questionnaire and patient medical records. Qualitative data were gathered from focus groups (n = 3) with key intervention staff members (n = 14). The user questionnaire also included open-ended questions. Descriptive, comparative and content analyses were produced.ResultsKey implementation issues were identified in relation to system, organizational and patient profiles, similar to results identified in most studies in the ED implementation literature aimed at improving responsiveness to patients with MD. Results were encouraging, as the innovations had a significant impact for improved patient MH service use and adequacy of care. Services also seemed adapted to patient profiles. Family members were grateful for the help received in the ED.ConclusionsBefore implementing innovations, managers need to recognize the basic issues common to all new healthcare interventions: the need for staff training and strong involvement, particularly among physicians, development of collaborative tools especially in cases of potential cultural clash between staff and organizations, and continuous quality assessment. Future research needs to confirm the pertinence of these interventions, especially use of family-peer support teams in ED, as a highly innovative intervention. Broader ED strategies could also be deployed to improve MH services and decrease ED use for MH reasons.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mental health service managers must take into account multiple factors when making decisions about the best way to deliver care to clients across increasingly larger service areas. This task is made more difficult by the lack of evidence and tools historically available to inform these decisions. In recent decades, the increasing availability of epidemiological and service use data for mental illness has solved the problem of evidence, but there still exists a challenge to make these data easily accessible and understandable for managers. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to develop a simulation modeling tool to allow managers to explore various service configurations in virtual reality, enabling predictions to be made about the cost and quality of care. METHODS:This is a longitudinal, mixed-methods case study, comprising overlapping intervention and evaluation phases. In partnership with senior managers of a mental health program, the researchers will develop a series of simulation models in Arena to address key strategic issues facing the service. Thematic and content analyses of semistructured interviews, meeting observations, and document analysis will be used to evaluate the process of model implementation and the outcomes for both researchers and managers. The study is being conducted in Australia. RESULTS:Data collection has been ongoing since late 2013. To date, 3 prototype simulation models have been developed and presented to senior managers, and 18 evaluation interviews have been conducted. The project is expected to conclude in late 2018. CONCLUSIONS:Findings of this study have the potential to shape decision making in mental health service delivery, by providing key examples of how to integrate patient data using simulation modeling. In addition, the results will provide key insights into how researchers and consultants can effectively implement simulation modeling in real-world health care organizations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR1-10.2196/11119.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Responsiveness to service users' views is a widely recognised objective of health systems. A key component of responsive health systems is effective interaction between users and service providers. Despite a growing literature on patient feedback from high-income settings, less is known about effectiveness of such systems in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS:This paper disseminates the protocol for an 18-month 'RESPOND' project that aims to evaluate the system of collecting and responding to user feedback in Bangladesh. This mixed-method study uses a realist evaluation approach to examine user feedback systems at two Upazila health complexes in Comilla District of Bangladesh, and comprises three steps: (1) initial theory development; (2) theory validation; and (3) theory refinement and development of lessons learnt. The project also uses (1) process evaluation to understand causal mechanisms and contexts of implementation; (2) statistical analysis of patient feedback to clarify the nature of issues reported; (3) social science methods to illuminate feedback processes and user and provider experiences; and (4) health policy and systems research to clarify issues related to integration of feedback systems with quality assurance and human resource management. During data analysis, qualitative and quantitative findings will be integrated throughout to help achieve study objectives. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data will be done using a convergent mixed-methods model, involving continuous triangulation of multiple data sets to facilitate greater understanding of the context of user feedback systems including the links with relevant policies, practices and programmes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approvals were obtained from the University of Leeds and the Bangladesh Medical Research Council. All data collected for this study will be anonymised, and identifying characteristics of respondents will not appear in a final manuscript or reports. The study findings will be presented at scientific conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing service user and carer involvement in mental health care planning is a key healthcare priority but one that is difficult to achieve in practice. To better understand and measure user and carer involvement, it is crucial to have measurement questionnaires that are both psychometrically robust and acceptable to the end user.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review using the terms "care plan$," "mental health," "user perspective$," and "user participation" and their linguistic variants as search terms. Databases were searched from inception to November 2012, with an update search at the end of September 2014. We included any articles that described the development, validation or use of a user and/or carer-reported outcome measures of involvement in mental health care planning. We assessed the psychometric quality of each instrument using the "Evaluating the Measurement of Patient-Reported Outcomes" (EMPRO) criteria. Acceptability of each instrument was assessed using novel criteria developed in consultation with a mental health service user and carer consultation group.ResultsWe identified eleven papers describing the use, development, and/or validation of nine user/carer-reported outcome measures. Psychometric properties were sparsely reported and the questionnaires met few service user/carer-nominated attributes for acceptability. Where reported, basic psychometric statistics were of good quality, indicating that some measures may perform well if subjected to more rigorous psychometric tests. The majority were deemed to be too long for use in practice.DiscussionMultiple instruments are available to measure user/carer involvement in mental health care planning but are either of poor quality or poorly described. Existing measures cannot be considered psychometrically robust by modern standards, and cannot currently be recommended for use. Our review has identified an important knowledge gap, and an urgent need to develop new user and carer measures of care-planning involvement.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough medication reconciliation (MedRec) is mandated and effective in decreasing preventable medication errors during transition of care, hospitals implement MedRec differently.ObjectiveQuantitatively compare the number and type of MedRec interventions between hospitals upon admission and discharge, followed by a qualitative analysis on potential reasons for differences.MethodsThis explanatory retrospective mixed-method study consisted of a quantitative and a qualitative part. Patients from six hospitals and six different wards i.e. orthopaedics, surgery, pulmonary diseases, internal medicine, cardiology and gastroenterology were included. At these wards, MedRec was implemented both on hospital admission and discharge. The number of pharmacy interventions was collected and classified in two subcategories. First, the number of interventions to resolve unintended discrepancies (elimination of differences between listed medication and the patient's actual medication use). And second, the number of medication optimizations (optimization of pharmacotherapy e.g. eliminating double medication). Based on these quantitative results and interviews, a focus group was performed to give insight in local MedRec processes to address differences in context between hospitals. Descriptive analysis (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative) was used.ResultsOn admission 765 (85%) patients from six hospitals, received MedRec by trained nurses, pharmacy technicians, pharmaceutical consultants or pharmacists. Of those, 36-95% (mean per patient 2.2 (SD ± 2.4)) had at least one discrepancy. Upon discharge, these numbers were among 632 (70%) of patients, 5-28% (mean per patient 0.7 (SD 1.2)). Optimizations in pharmacotherapy were implemented for 2% (0.4-3.7 interventions per patient upon admission) to 95% (0.1-1.7 interventions per patient upon discharge) of patients. The main themes explaining differences in numbers of interventions were patient-mix, the type of healthcare professionals involved, where and when patient interviews for MedRec were performed and finally, embedding and extent of medication optimization.ConclusionsHospitals differed greatly in the number of interventions performed during MedRec. Differences in execution of MedRec and local context determines the number of interventions. This study can support hospitals who want to optimize MedRec processes.

Project description:BackgroundIncreasing number of service users diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis are being discharged from specialist secondary care services to primary care, many of whom are prescribed long-term antipsychotics. It is unclear if General Practitioners (GPs) have the confidence and experience to appropriately review and adjust doses of antipsychotic medication without secondary care support.AimTo explore barriers and facilitators of conducting antipsychotic medication reviews in primary care for individuals with no specialist mental health input.Design & settingRealist review in general practice settings.MethodA realist review has been conducted to synthesise evidence on antipsychotic medication reviews conducted in primary care with service users diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis. Following initial scoping searches and discussions with stakeholders, a systematic search and iterative secondary searches were conducted. Articles were systematically screened and analysed to develop a realist programme theory explaining the contexts (C) and mechanisms (M) which facilitate or prevent antipsychotic medication reviews (O) in primary care settings, and the potential outcomes of medication reviews.ResultsMeaningful Antipsychotic medication reviews may not occur for individuals with only primary care medical input. Several, often mutually reinforcing, mechanisms have been identified as potential barriers to conducting such reviews, including low expectations of recovery for people with severe mental illness, a perceived lack of capability to understand and participate in medication reviews, linked with a lack of information shared in appointments between GPs and Service Users, perceived risk and uncertainty regarding antipsychotic medication and illness trajectory.ConclusionsThe review identified reciprocal and reinforcing stereotypes affecting both GPs and service users. Possible mechanisms to counteract these barriers are discussed, including realistic expectations of medication, and the need for increased information sharing and trust between GPs and service users.