Dataset Information

The influence of caregiver attitudes and socioeconomic group on formal and informal mental health service use among youth.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Young people can receive mental health care from many sources, from formal and informal sectors. Caregiver characteristics/experiences/beliefs may influence whether young people get help and the type of care or support used by their child. We investigate facilitators/barriers to receiving formal and/or informal care, particularly those related to the caregiver's profile.

Methods

We interviewed 1,400 Brazilian primary caregivers of young people (aged 10-19), participants of a high-risk cohort. Caregivers reported on young people's formal/informal mental health care utilization, and associated barriers and facilitators to care. Data were also collected on youth mental health and its impact on everyday life; and caregiver characteristics-education, socioeconomics, ethnicity, mental health, and stigma. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between caregiver and young people characteristics with formal/informal care utilization.

Results

Persistence and greater impact of youth mental health conditions were associated with a higher likelihood of care, more clearly for formal care. Caregiver characteristics, however, also played a key role in whether young people received any care: lower parental stigma was associated with greater formal service use, and lower socioeconomic class showed higher odds of informal care (mainly from religious leaders).

Conclusions

This study highlights the key role of the caregivers as gatekeepers to child treatment access, particularly parental stigma influencing whether young people received any mental health care, even in a low resource setting. These results help to map barriers for treatment access and delivery for young people, aiming to improve intervention efforts and mental health support.

SUBMITTER: Paula CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9251818 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: The recovery approach aims to have users' perspectives at the heart of service development and research; it is a holistic perspective that considers social needs, personal growth and inclusion. In the last decade recovery-oriented research and practice has increased greatly, however, a comprehensive model of recovery considering exclusively the perspectives of people with lived experience has not been devised. Aims: This review aimed to develop a framework and contextualize service users' and informal caregivers' understanding of recovery from severe mental health problems. Methods: We systematically searched 6 databases including key terms related to knowledge, experience and narratives AND mental health AND personal recovery. The search was supplemented with reference sourcing through gray literature, reference tracking and expert consultation. Data analysis consisted of a qualitative meta-synthesis using constant comparative methods. Results: Sixty-two studies were analyzed. A pattern emerged regarding the recovery paradigms that the studies used to frame their findings. The resulting recovery framework included the domains Social recovery; Prosperity (Legal, political, and economic recovery); Individual Recovery; and Clinical Recovery Experience (SPICE). Service users' definitions of recovery tended to prioritize social aspects, particularly being accepted and connecting with others, while caregivers focused instead on clinical definitions of recovery such as symptom remission. Both groups emphasized individual aspects such as becoming self-sufficient and achieving personal goals, which was strongly linked with having economic means for independence. Conclusions: The recovery model provided by this review offers a template for further research in the field and a guide for policy and practice. Predominant definitions of recovery currently reflect understandings of mental health which focus on an individual perspective, while this review found an important emphasis on socio-political aspects. At the same time, only a small number of studies took place in low-income countries, focused on minoritized populations, or included caregivers' perspectives. These are important gaps in the literature that require further attention. Systematic Review Registration: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017076450); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=76450.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear how formal long-term care (LTC) availability affects formal /informal caregiving patterns and caregiver health. We tested the impact of reduced formal LTC availability on formal LTC service use, intensity of informal caregiving, and caregiver health.MethodsUsing a representative, repeated cross-sectional sample of Japanese caregivers providing care to co-resident family members from 2001 to 2016, we applied a difference-in-differences approach by observing caregivers before and after the major reform of the public Japanese LTC insurance (LTCI) in 2006. The reform reduced coverage benefits for non-institutionalized older persons with low care needs, but not for those with high care needs. We analyzed 12,764 caregivers aged ≥30 years (mean age 64.3 ± 11.8 years, 73.5% women) and measured indicators of formal LTC use, hours of informal caregiving, and caregiver self-reported health outcomes after propensity score matching to balance caregivers' background characteristics.ResultsWe found the 2006 LTCI reform relatively reduced the use of formal LTC services and relatively increased the percentage of experiencing long hours of informal caregiving (> 3 h per day) among the caregivers for seniors with low care needs compared to those for seniors with high care needs. The effects of the LTCI reform for the caregivers for seniors with low care needs were 2.2 percentage point higher on caregivers' experiencing poor self-rated health (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-3.7; p = 0.01), 2.7 percentage point higher on experiencing symptoms of a depressive state (95%CI: 0.5-4.8; p = 0.03), and 4.7 percentage point higher on experiencing symptoms of musculoskeletal diseases (95%CI, 3.6-5.7; p < 0.001), compared to those for seniors with high care needs.ConclusionsReduced formal care availability under the Japanese LTCI reform increased hours of informal caregiving corresponding to reduced use of formal LTC and deteriorated multiple dimensions of caregiver health. Our findings may highlight the importance of enhancing the availability of formal LTC services for caregiver health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research on public stigma towards people with mental disorders has mostly targeted adult samples and focused on depression, schizophrenia or mental disorders in general. Hence, the present study aimed to investigate predictors of stigmatizing attitudes towards different mental disorders (including less researched ones) in a representative sample of adolescents and young adults. METHODS:Data from the Swiss Youth Mental Health Literacy and Stigma Survey were used (analytical sample: n = 4,932). Each participant was randomly presented with one of five vignettes (depression; alcohol abuse; depression and alcohol abuse combined; schizophrenia; social anxiety). The structure of stigmatizing attitudes was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Regression models, implemented within a structural equation framework, were used to study predictors for the identified latent variables. RESULTS:A three-factor model for stigmatizing attitudes-consisting of 'dangerous/unpredictable', 'weak-no-sick', and 'social distance' factors-best fitted the data. Female gender was associated with less stigmatizing attitudes. Associations in opposite directions with different latent factors were found for educational and migration background. Exposure to mental disorders (being personally affected, personally having received professional help or knowing someone close who has received treatment for a mental disorder) was either not or was negatively associated with stigmatizing attitudes. In contrast, current mental health symptoms (heightened levels of psychological distress, problematic alcohol use) were generally not or were positively associated with stigmatizing attitudes. Even though the included predictors had some predictive value, the variance explained by the models was rather small (the adjusted R2 varied between 0.03 and 0.26). CONCLUSIONS:The current study indicates that contact with someone who has received treatment for a mental disorder might be an important component of programs aiming to decrease stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders, since this exposure variable predicted lower levels of stigmatizing attitudes. Furthermore, the findings suggest that target-group interventions for specific subgroups need to be considered, as the process leading to stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders appears to differ between specific sociodemographic subgroups.