Dataset Information

Challenges in providing ethically competent health care to incarcerated older adults with mental illness: a qualitative study exploring mental health professionals' perspectives in Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The population of incarcerated older adults is the fastest growing demographic in prisons. Older persons in custody have poorer health as compared with those in the community. The unmet and complex health care needs of incarcerated older adults with mental illness raise justice, safety, dignity and fairness in care as ethical concerns. As there exists research gap to better understand these concerns, the current study aimed at exploring the perspectives of mental health professionals on challenges in delivering ethically competent care to mentally ill incarcerated older adults in Canada.

Methods

Thirty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted between August 2017 and November 2018 with prison mental health professionals in Canada who were selected using purposive and convenience sampling techniques. The audio recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively to generate themes.

Results

The results were distilled into three main categories and seven subcategories that related to ethical issues in the provision of health care for mentally ill incarcerated older adults. The main categories included imprisoned older persons with special care needs, lack of resources, and the peer-support program.

Conclusions

Results of this study showed that existing practices of care of mentally ill incarcerated older adults are characterised by challenges that increase their vulnerability to worse health conditions. It is imperative for local authorities, policy makers and representatives to prepare for and respond to the challenges that compromise ethically competent health care for, and healthy ageing of, mentally ill incarcerated older adults.

SUBMITTER: Mussie KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8683829 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe side effects of antipsychotic medications (APs) can increase the risk of developing physical health conditions. Some APs pose a higher risk than others. Evidence suggests switching to lower risk APs can support physical health outcomes. We sought to explore the views of healthcare professionals about switching antipsychotics to support physical health in people with severe mental illness (SMI).DesignA qualitative study with semi-structured interviews conducted with general practitioners (GPs), psychiatrists and mental health nurses. The main focus was to explore participants' views on the physical health of people with SMI, the impact of APs and decision-making about switching medication to support physical health. Data were analysed thematically using principles of constant comparison.SettingsParticipants recruited through primary care and one mental health trust in the West Midlands.ParticipantsInterviews were conducted with 9 GPs, 10 psychiatrists and 4 mental health nurses.ResultsAwareness and knowledge of AP side-effects and risk profiles varied considerably between primary and secondary care clinicians. GPs reported limited awareness, while psychiatrists and nurses demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of AP risk profiles and side-effects. Mental health and control of symptoms were prioritised. Switching to promote physical health was considered as a reactive intervention, once side-effects or complications developed. There were a range of views over where responsibility lay for monitoring physical health and consideration of switching. Collaboration between primary and secondary care was identified as a way to address this.ConclusionsThis study presents multidisciplinary perspectives on awareness, decision making, perceived responsibility and barriers to switching APs to support physical health. Collaborative approaches that involve liaison between primary and secondary care, but tailored to the individual patient, may support switching, and present an opportunity to intervene to address the physical health inequalities experienced by individuals with SMI.

Project description:Similar to the general public, mental health professionals sometimes also have negative attitudes towards individuals with mental illness; which could ultimately affect the quality of care received by the patients. This study aims to explore attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore; make comparisons with the general population; and investigate the significant correlates.A cross-sectional design was used. Eligible participants were recruited from the Institute of Mental Health, Singapore. Attitudes to mental illness among the mental health professionals were measured using an adapted 26-item Attitudes to Mental Illness questionnaire (AMI). An earlier study amongst the general population in Singapore had used the same tool; however, factor analysis suggested a 20-item, 4-factor structure (AMI-SG) was the best fit. This 4-factor structure was applied among the current sample of mental health professionals to allow comparisons between the professionals and the general population. Data were collected through an online survey tool 'Questionpro' from February to April 2016, and 379 participants were included in the current analysis. Attitudes to mental illness among these professionals were compared to those of the general population, which were captured as part of a national study conducted from March 2014 to April 2015.The 20-item, 4-factor structure AMI-SG derived from the general population was applicable among the mental health professionals in Singapore. Compared to the general population, mental health professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness; however their scores on 'social distancing' did not differ from the general population. Indian ethnicity was negatively associated with 'social distancing' and 'social restrictiveness' among the professionals; while higher education was negatively related to 'prejudice and misconception'. Compared to nurses, doctors showed significantly more positive attitudes on 'social restrictiveness' and 'prejudice and misconception'. Having family or close friends diagnosed with mental illness was negatively associated with 'social distancing' among the professionals.The AMI-SG is an effective tool to measure attitudes to mental illness among mental health professionals in Singapore. Although the professionals had significantly more positive attitudes to mental illness than the general public in Singapore, their attitudes on 'social distancing' resembled closely that of the general public. Professionals tended to have more negative attitudes if they were nurses, less educated, and of Chinese ethnicity. More studies are needed to explore the underlying reasons for the differences and to generalize these findings among mental health professionals elsewhere.

Project description:BackgroundMental health stigma is one of the most prominent barriers to recovery, and it is widely known that stigma may manifest differentially in different cultures. Healthcare professionals working closely with persons with mental illnesses (PMI) may provide important insights towards stigma that are otherwise unattainable from caregivers and consumers. However, there is a dearth of literature on healthcare professionals' perspectives on this topic. Thus, this study uses a multilevel approach to explore how stigma affects recovery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals that work closely with PMI in Singapore.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 17 healthcare professionals who were working in mental health settings in Singapore. Participants were recruited via direct email invitation or through snowball sampling. Data collected was analysed with the inductive thematic analysis method. All coding and inter-rater analyses were performed with NVivo.ResultsThe current study themes identified stigma-related factors that influence PMI's recovery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals working closely with PMI. These factors were organised into three overarching themes in a multilevel structure. The three themes were classified as Micro Factors (e.g., internalised stigma), Meso Factors (e.g., discrimination of people associated with the stigmatised group), and Macro Factors (e.g., structural stigma and stigma within healthcare settings).ConclusionsThe findings of this study gave us a greater understanding of how stigma influences recovery in Singapore, which could be used to guide the development and implementation of future policies and strategies to promote recovery. Importantly, our results suggest that improving mental health literacy, addressing cultural misgivings towards mental illness, implementing recovery-oriented practices, and making insurance more accessible for PMI could mitigate the deleterious impact that stigma has on recovery.

Project description:PURPOSE:Individuals with mental illnesses have higher morbidity rates and reduced life expectancy compared to the general population. Understanding how patients and providers perceive the need for prevention, as well as the barriers and beliefs that may contribute to insufficient care, are important for improving service delivery tailored to this population. DESIGN:Cross-sectional; mixed methods. SETTING:An integrated health system and a network of federally qualified health centers and safety net clinics. PARTICIPANTS:Interviews (n = 30) and surveys (n = 249) with primary care providers. Interviews (n = 158) and surveys (n = 160) with patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar, anxiety, or major depressive disorders. MEASURES:Semi-structured interviews and surveys. ANALYSIS:Thematic analysis for qualitative data; frequencies for quantitative data. RESULTS:More than half (n = 131, 53%) of clinicians believed patients with mental illnesses care less about preventive care than the general population, yet 88% (n = 139) of patients reported interest in improving health. Most providers (n = 216, 88%) lacked confidence that patients with mental illnesses would follow preventive recommendations; 82% (n = 129) of patients reported they would try to change lifestyles if their doctor recommended. Clinicians explained that their perception of patients' chaotic lives and lack of interest in preventive care contributed to their fatalistic attitudes on care delivery to this population. Clinicians and patients agreed on substantial need for additional support for behavior changes. Clinicians reported providing informational support by keeping messages simple; patients reported a desire for more detailed information on reasons to complete preventive care. Patients also detailed the need for assistive and tangible support to manage behavioral health changes. CONCLUSIONS:Our results suggest a few clinical changes could help patients complete preventive care recommendations and improve health behaviors: improving clinician-patient collaboration on realistic goal setting, increasing visit time or utilizing behavioral health consultants that bridge primary and specialty mental health care, and increasing educational and tangible patient support services.