Summary Stigma and discrimination in relation to mental illnesses have been described as having worse consequences than the conditions themselves. Most medical literature in this area of research has ...been descriptive and has focused on attitudes towards people with mental illness rather than on interventions to reduce stigma. In this narrative Review, we summarise what is known globally from published systematic reviews and primary data on effective interventions intended to reduce mental-illness-related stigma or discrimination. The main findings emerging from this narrative overview are that: (1) at the population level there is a fairly consistent pattern of short-term benefits for positive attitude change, and some lesser evidence for knowledge improvement; (2) for people with mental illness, some group-level anti-stigma inventions show promise and merit further assessment; (3) for specific target groups, such as students, social-contact-based interventions usually achieve short-term (but less clearly long-term) attitudinal improvements, and less often produce knowledge gains; (4) this is a heterogeneous field of study with few strong study designs with large sample sizes; (5) research from low-income and middle-income countries is conspicuous by its relative absence; (6) caution needs to be exercised in not overgeneralising lessons from one target group to another; (7) there is a clear need for studies with longer-term follow-up to assess whether initial gains are sustained or attenuated, and whether booster doses of the intervention are needed to maintain progress; (8) few studies in any part of the world have focused on either the service user's perspective of stigma and discrimination or on the behaviour domain of behavioural change, either by people with or without mental illness in the complex processes of stigmatisation. We found that social contact is the most effective type of intervention to improve stigma-related knowledge and attitudes in the short term. However, the evidence for longer-term benefit of such social contact to reduce stigma is weak. In view of the magnitude of challenges that result from mental health stigma and discrimination, a concerted effort is needed to fund methodologically strong research that will provide robust evidence to support decisions on investment in interventions to reduce stigma.
Summary Background The CRIMSON (CRisis plan IMpact: Subjective and Objective coercion and eNgagement) study is an individual level, randomised controlled trial that compared the effectiveness of ...Joint Crisis Plans (JCPs) with treatment as usual for people with severe mental illness. The JCP is a negotiated statement by a patient of treatment preferences for any future psychiatric emergency, when he or she might be unable to express clear views. We assessed whether the additional use of JCPs improved patient outcomes compared with treatment as usual. Methods Patients were eligible if they had at least one psychiatric admission in the previous 2 years and were on the Enhanced Care Programme Approach register. The study was done with 64 generic and specialist community mental health teams in four English mental health care provider organisations (trusts). Hypotheses tested were that, compared with the control group, the intervention group would experience: fewer compulsory admissions (primary outcome); fewer psychiatric admissions; shorter psychiatric stays; lower perceived coercion; improved therapeutic relationships; and improved engagement. We stratified participants by centre. The research team but not participants nor clinical staff were masked to allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number ISRCTN11501328. Findings 569 participants were randomly assigned (285 to the intervention group and 284 to the control group). No significant treatment effect was seen for the primary outcome (56 20% sectioned in the control group and 49 18% in the JCP group; odds ratio 0·90 95% CI 0·58–1·39, p=0·63) or any secondary outcomes, with the exception of an improved secondary outcome of therapeutic relationships (17·3 7·6 vs 16·0 7·1; adjusted difference −1·28 95% CI −2·56 to −0·01, p=0·049). Qualitative data supported this finding. Interpretation Our findings are inconsistent with two earlier JCP studies, and show that the JCP is not significantly more effective than treatment as usual. There is evidence to suggest the JCPs were not fully implemented in all study sites, and were combined with routine clinical review meetings which did not actively incorporate patients' preferences. The study therefore raises important questions about implementing new interventions in routine clinical practice. Funding Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research.
Summary Background Depression is the third leading contributor to the worldwide burden of disease. We assessed the nature and severity of experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by adults ...with major depressive disorder worldwide. Moreover, we investigated whether experienced discrimination is related to clinical history, provision of health care, and disclosure of diagnosis and whether anticipated discrimination is associated with disclosure and previous experiences of discrimination. Methods In a cross-sectional survey, people with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder were interviewed in 39 sites (35 countries) worldwide with the discrimination and stigma scale (version 12; DISC-12). Other inclusion criteria were ability to understand and speak the main local language and age 18 years or older. The DISC-12 subscores assessed were reported discrimination and anticipated discrimination. Multivariable regression was used to analyse the data. Findings 1082 people with depression completed the DISC-12. Of these, 855 (79%) reported experiencing discrimination in at least one life domain. 405 (37%) participants had stopped themselves from initiating a close personal relationship, 271 (25%) from applying for work, and 218 (20%) from applying for education or training. We noted that higher levels of experienced discrimination were associated with several lifetime depressive episodes (negative binomial regression coefficient 0·20 95% CI 0·09–0·32, p=0·001); at least one lifetime psychiatric hospital admission (0·29 0·15–0·42, p=0·001); poorer levels of social functioning (widowed, separated, or divorced 0·10 0·01–0·19, p=0·032; unpaid employed 0·34 0·09–0·60, p=0·007; looking for a job 0·26 0·09–0·43, p=0·002; and unemployed 0·22 0·03–0·41, p=0·022). Experienced discrimination was also associated with lower willingness to disclose a diagnosis of depression (mean discrimination score 4·18 SD 3·68 for concealing depression vs 2·25 2·65 for disclosing depression; p<0·0001). Anticipated discrimination is not necessarily associated with experienced discrimination because 147 (47%) of 316 participants who anticipated discrimination in finding or keeping a job and 160 (45%) of 353 in their intimate relationships had not experienced discrimination. Interpretation Discrimination related to depression acts as a barrier to social participation and successful vocational integration. Non-disclosure of depression is itself a further barrier to seeking help and to receiving effective treatment. This finding suggests that new and sustained approaches are needed to prevent stigmatisation of people with depression and reduce the effects of stigma when it is already established. Funding European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumers, Public Health Executive Agency.
Summary There has been increasing recognition of the high physical morbidity in patients with severe mental illness, but little has been written about cancer in these patients. Therefore, we review ...the published work on risk of cancer in patients with severe mental illness, treatment challenges, and ethical issues. Severe mental illness is associated with behaviours that predispose an individual to an increased risk of some cancers, including lung and breast cancer, although lower rates of other cancers are reported in this population. Severe mental illness is also associated with disparities in screening for cancer and with higher case-fatality rates. This higher rate is partly due to the specific challenges of treating these patients, including medical comorbidity, drug interactions, lack of capacity, and difficulties in coping with the treatment regimen as a result of psychiatric symptoms. To ensure that patients with severe mental illness receive effective treatment, inequalities in care need to be addressed by all health-care professionals involved, including those from mental health services and the surgical and oncology teams.
Long-term complications of cystic fibrosis include osteoporosis and fragility fractures, but few data are available about effective treatment strategies, especially in young patients. We investigated ...treatment of low bone mineral density in children, adolescents, and young adults with cystic fibrosis.
We did a multicentre trial in two phases. We enrolled patients aged 5-30 years with cystic fibrosis and low bone mineral density, from ten cystic fibrosis regional centres in Italy. The first phase was an open-label, 12-month observational study of the effect of adequate calcium intake plus calcifediol. The second phase was a 12-month, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel group study of the efficacy and safety of oral alendronate in patients whose bone mineral apparent density had not increased by 5% or more by the end of the observational phase. Patients were randomly assigned to either alendronate or placebo. Both patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. We used dual x-ray absorptiometry at baseline and every 6 months thereafter, corrected for body size, to assess lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density. We assessed bone turnover markers and other laboratory parameters every 3-6 months. The primary endpoint was mean increase of lumbar spine bone mineral apparent density, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01812551.
We screened 540 patients and enrolled 171 (mean age 13·8 years, SD 5·9, range 5-30). In the observational phase, treatment with calcium and calcifediol increased bone mineral apparent density by 5% or more in 43 patients (25%). 128 patients entered the randomised phase. Bone mineral apparent density increased by 16·3% in the alendronate group (n=65) versus 3·1% in the placebo group (n=63; p=0·0010). 19 of 57 young people (33·3%) receiving alendronate attained a normal-for-age bone mineral apparent density Z score. In the observational phase, five patients had moderate episodes of hypercalciuria, which resolved after short interruption of calcifediol treatment. During the randomised phase, one patient taking alendronate had mild fever versus none in the placebo group; treatment groups did not differ significantly for other adverse events.
Correct calcium intake plus calcifediol can improve bone mineral density in some young patients with cystic fibrosis. In those who do not respond to calcium and calcifediol alone, alendronate can safely and effectively increase bone mineral density.
Telethon Foundation (Italy).
PDF
