Dataset Information

The perspectives of healthcare professionals in mental health settings on stigma and recovery - A qualitative inquiry.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mental 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.

Methods

Semi-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.

Results

The 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).

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Gunasekaran S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9270770 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionResearch shows that mental health-related stigma, stereotypes, and prejudices have a negative impact on the patients themselves as well as on their families and social entourage. Healthcare professionals, whose expertise and professional ethos are historically acknowledged by public opinion, are expected to play a major role in combating discrimination against psychiatric patients. In this study, we aimed to assess the attitudes of Greek healthcare professionals toward mental illness and people suffering from it.Materials and methodsIt is a non-interventional, analytic study, in which 479 health workers from a tertiary hospital in Thessaloniki, Greece, participated. Every single hospital service -except the personnel of the Psychiatric Clinic- was included in our study: from the cleaning service to the administrative staff and the auxiliary staff such as stretcher carriers, food and nutrition services' staff, and social workers, the nursing staff, and finally the attending physicians, taking into consideration that the psychiatric patient, from the moment he/she enters the hospital, consecutively gets in contact with every work grade of the healthcare establishment. Participants' attitudes concerning mental illness have been evaluated using the Opinions about Mental Illness Scale (OMI), the Social Distance Scale (SDS), and the Level of Contact Report (LCR-12).ResultsDespite the high level of familiarity [as evaluated with LCR-12; mean score (μ): 8.82 ± 1.73], the employees displayed a rather poor willingness to interact with psychiatric patients (as measured with SDS; μ:11.68 ± 4.28), and endorsed significant prejudice toward individuals with mental disorders (assessed using OMI subscales; Social Discrimination μ: 22.99 ± 12.08, Social Restriction μ: 17.45 ± 9.07, Social Care μ: 21.04 ± 4.12, Social Integration μ: 16.38 ± 4.68, Etiology μ: 9.80 ± 4.95). Age and education stood out as the main determinants of participants' attitudes, with younger and highly educated participants to have shown a relatively refined profile.ConclusionThese results are not significantly improved compared to those of previous decades in Greek healthcare professionals and call for critical reflection and targeted stigma-reduction efforts.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the mental health care environment. AI tools are increasingly accessed by clients and service users. Mental health professionals must be prepared not only to use AI but also to have conversations about it when delivering care. Despite the potential for AI to enable more efficient and reliable and higher-quality care delivery, there is a persistent gap among mental health professionals in the adoption of AI.ObjectiveA needs assessment was conducted among mental health professionals to (1) understand the learning needs of the workforce and their attitudes toward AI and (2) inform the development of AI education curricula and knowledge translation products.MethodsA qualitative descriptive approach was taken to explore the needs of mental health professionals regarding their adoption of AI through semistructured interviews. To reach maximum variation sampling, mental health professionals (eg, psychiatrists, mental health nurses, educators, scientists, and social workers) in various settings across Ontario (eg, urban and rural, public and private sector, and clinical and research) were recruited.ResultsA total of 20 individuals were recruited. Participants included practitioners (9/20, 45% social workers and 1/20, 5% mental health nurses), educator scientists (5/20, 25% with dual roles as professors/lecturers and researchers), and practitioner scientists (3/20, 15% with dual roles as researchers and psychiatrists and 2/20, 10% with dual roles as researchers and mental health nurses). Four major themes emerged: (1) fostering practice change and building self-efficacy to integrate AI into patient care; (2) promoting system-level change to accelerate the adoption of AI in mental health; (3) addressing the importance of organizational readiness as a catalyst for AI adoption; and (4) ensuring that mental health professionals have the education, knowledge, and skills to harness AI in optimizing patient care.ConclusionsAI technologies are starting to emerge in mental health care. Although many digital tools, web-based services, and mobile apps are designed using AI algorithms, mental health professionals have generally been slower in the adoption of AI. As indicated by this study's findings, the implications are 3-fold. At the individual level, digital professionals must see the value in digitally compassionate tools that retain a humanistic approach to care. For mental health professionals, resistance toward AI adoption must be acknowledged through educational initiatives to raise awareness about the relevance, practicality, and benefits of AI. At the organizational level, digital professionals and leaders must collaborate on governance and funding structures to promote employee buy-in. At the societal level, digital and mental health professionals should collaborate in the creation of formal AI training programs specific to mental health to address knowledge gaps. This study promotes the design of relevant and sustainable education programs to support the adoption of AI within the mental health care sphere.

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:BackgroundEffective communication is a central aspect of organizational health literacy. Healthcare professionals are expected to ensure an effective and satisfactory flow of information and to support their patients in accessing, understanding, appraising, and applying health information. This qualitative study aimed to examine the health literacy-related challenges, needs, and applied solutions of healthcare professionals when engaging with persons with a migrant background. Based on the integrated model of health literacy (Sørensen et al., BMC Public Health 12:80, 2012), we focused on environmental, personal, and situational factors that shape health literacy in transcultural treatment settings.MethodsWe conducted five focus group discussions with healthcare professionals (N = 31) who are in regular contact with persons with a migrant background. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis by applying a deductive-inductive categorization procedure. Deductive categories were derived from the integrated model of health literacy.ResultsChallenges included a mismatch in the provision and use of health services. Participants regarded easily accessible services and outreach counselling as helpful solutions. Further challenges were the migrant patients' distrust in healthcare professionals and the German healthcare system, the participants' uncertainty in dealing with patients' expectations and needs, and the patients' non-compliance with appointments. Environmental factors included systemic lack of time and economic pressure. Both were reported as impeding the flow of information in all treatment settings. Participants with a migrant background themselves (n = 16) regarded this personal factor as an opportunity that increased patients' trust in them. They also reported challenges such as high levels of responsibility felt when ad hoc interpreting for colleagues.ConclusionsKnown issues observed in the delivery of healthcare for the majority population (i.e., systemic lack of time, economic pressure) appear to be intensified in the context of migration. An increasingly diverse patient clientele indicates a growing need for culture-sensitive, health-literate healthcare organizations. A corresponding diversity of the health workforce is desirable and should be strengthened by national finance and educational programs. Healthcare professionals who interpret for colleagues should be given the necessary time. Further studies are needed to develop appropriate interventions for improving health literacy at individual and organizational levels. Funding for interpreting services should be expanded.

Project description:BackgroundImplementing practices adapted to patient health literacy (HL) is a promising avenue for improving their outcomes in the context of cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The health communication skills of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and the quality of information provided are essential for low-HL patients. We aimed to explore HCP knowledge about HL, patients' and HCPs' views on current practices regarding low-HL patients, and facilitators and barriers to adapting communication to patients' HL level, in order to prepare the implementation of a complex intervention dedicated to improve CVD management for low-HL patients.MethodsWe conducted face-to-face semi-structured interviews with HCPs practicing in cardiology units and patients hospitalized for CVD. The study design and analysis were based on the Theory of Planned Behavior for HCPs and on the framework of Health Literacy and Health Action for patients. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis were used. Barriers and facilitators were structured into an Ishikawa fishbone diagram and implementation strategies were selected to address resulting themes from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC).ResultsFifteen patients and 14 HCPs were interviewed. HCPs had partial knowledge of HL dimensions. Perceptions of HCPs and patients were not congruent regarding HCP-patient interactions and information provided by hospital and community HCPs. HCPs perceived they lacked validated tools and skills, and declared they adapted spontaneously their communication when interacting with low-HL patients. Patients expressed unmet needs regarding communication during hospital discharge and at return to home.ConclusionTo implement HL-tailored practices in this setting, our results suggest that several implementation strategies will be valuable at individual (engaging patients and their family), interactional (educating and training of HCPs about HL), and organizational levels (creating a multidisciplinary HCP interest group dedicated to HL).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, (NCT number) NCT03949309, May 10, 2019.