Dataset Information

Changes in national rates of psychiatric beds and incarceration in Central Eastern Europe and Central Asia from 1990-2019: A retrospective database analysis.

ABSTRACT:

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.

Funding

Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo in Chile, grant scheme FONDECYT Regular, grant number 1190613.

SUBMITTER: Mundt AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8454862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Globally, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality, including in the WHO European region. Within this region, the Member States with the greatest cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden are also some of the lowest resourced. As the need for technical support for the implementation of essential CVD/NCD interventions in primary healthcare (PHC) in these regions grew urgent, the WHO Regional Office for Europe has been directly supporting national governments in the development, assessment, scale-up and quality improvement of large scale PHC interventions for CVD. Herein, we synthesise the key learnings from providing technical support to national governments under the auspices of the WHO across the European region and share these learnings as a resource for public health professionals to consider when increasing coverage of quality essential health services. Based on our experience providing technical support to a diversity of Member States in the European Region (eg, Tajikistan, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Uzbekistan), we have identified six key lessons: prioritising NCDs for public health intervention, identifying and mapping existing resources, engaging key stakeholders, tailoring interventions to the local health system, generating local evidence and ensuring quality improvement while mainstreaming. Common challenges across all phases of implementation include multiple and inconsistent international toolkits and guidance, lack of national capacity for evidence-based healthcare, limited access to essential medicines and technologies, inconsistent national guidelines and limited experience in evaluation methodology, clinical epidemiology and guideline implementation. We map the lessons to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and highlight key learnings and challenges specific to the region. Member States in the region are at various stages of implementation; however, several are currently conducting pragmatic clinical trials to generate local evidence for health policy. As this work expands, greater engagement with peer-to-peer sharing of contextual wisdom, sharing of resources, publishing methodology and results and development of region-specific resources is planned.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has been challenging time for medical care, especially in the field of infectious diseases (ID), but it has also provided an opportunity to introduce new solutions in HIV management. Here, we investigated the changes in HIV service provision across Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries before and after the COVID-19 outbreak.MethodsThe Euroguidelines in Central and Eastern Europe Network Group consists of experts in the field of ID from 24 countries within the CEE region. Between 11 September and 29 September 2021, the group produced an on-line survey, consisting of 32 questions on models of care among HIV clinics before and after the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak.ResultsTwenty-three HIV centers from 19 countries (79.2% of all countries invited) participated in the survey. In 69.5% of the countries, there were more than four HIV centers, in three countries there were four centers (21%), and in four countries there was only one HIV center in each country. HIV care was based in ID hospitals plus out-patient clinics (52%), was centralized in big cities (52%), and was publicly financed (96%). Integrated services were available in 21 clinics (91%) with access to specialists other than ID, including psychologists in 71.5% of the centers, psychiatrists in 43%, gynecologists in 47.5%, dermatologists in 52.5%, and social workers in 62% of all clinics. Patient-centered care was provided in 17 centers (74%), allowing consultations and tests to be planned for the same day. Telehealth tools were used in 11 centers (47%) before the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and in 18 (78%) after (p = 0.36), but were represented mostly by consultations over the telephone or via e-mail. After the COVID-19 outbreak, telehealth was introduced as a new medical tool in nine centers (39%). In five centers (28%), no new services or tools were introduced.ConclusionsAs a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, tools such as telehealth have become popularized in CEE countries, challenging the traditional approach to HIV care. These implications need to be further evaluated in order to ascertain the best adaptations, especially for HIV medicine.

Project description:BackgroundA significant determinant of population health outcomes is the quality of care provided for noncommunicable diseases, obstetric, and pediatric care. We present results on clinical practice quality in these areas as measured among nearly 4,000 providers working at more than 1,000 facilities in 6 Eastern European and Central Asian countries.MethodsThis study was conducted between March 2011 and April 2013 in Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirov Province in Russia, and Tajikistan. Using a probability proportional-to-size sampling technique, based on number of hospital beds, we randomly selected within each country 42 hospitals and their associated primary health care clinics. Physicians and midwives within each clinical area of interest were randomly selected from each hospital and clinic and asked how they would care for simulated patients using Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes. Facility administrators were also asked to complete a facility survey to collect structural measures of quality. CPV vignettes were scored on a scale of 0% to 100% for each provider. We used descriptive statistics and t tests to identify significant differences in CPV scores between hospitals and clinics and rural vs. urban facilities, and ANOVA to identify significant differences in CPV scores across countries.ResultsWe found that quality of care, as concurrently measured by performance on CPV vignettes, was generally poor and widely variable within and between countries. Providers in Kirov Province, Russia, had the highest overall performance, with an average score of 70.8%, while providers in Albania and Tajikistan had the lowest average score, each at 50.8%. The CPV vignettes with the lowest scores were for multiple noncommunicable disease risk factors and birth asphyxia. A considerable proportion (11%) of providers performed well on the CPV vignettes, regardless of country, facility, or structural resources available to them.ConclusionsCountries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia are challenged by poor performance as measured by clinical care vignettes, but there is potential for provision of high-quality care by a sizable proportion of providers. Large-scale assessments of quality of care have been hampered by the lack of effective measurement tools that provide generalizable and reliable results across diverse economic, cultural, and social settings. The feasibility of quality measurement using CPV vignettes in these 6 countries and the ability to combine results with individual feedback could significantly enhance strategies to improve quality of care, and ultimately population health.