Claire Henderson

Effect of joint crisis plans on use of compulsory treatment in psychiatry: single blind randomised controlled trial

Abstract Objective To investigate whether a form of advance agreement for people with severe mental illness can reduce the use of inpatient services and compulsory admission or treatment. Design Single blind randomised controlled trial, with randomisation of individual patients. The investigator was blind to allocation. Setting Eight community mental health teams in southern England. Participants 160 people with an operational diagnosis of psychotic illness or non-psychotic bipolar disorder who had experienced a hospital admission within the previous two years. Intervention The joint crisis plan was formulated by the patient, care coordinator, psychiatrist, and project worker and contained contact information, details of mental and physical illnesses, treatments, indicators for relapse, and advance statements of preferences for care in the event of future relapse. Main outcome measures Admission to hospital, bed days, and use of the Mental Health Act over 15 month follow up. Results Use of the Mental Health Act was significantly reduced for the intervention group, 13% (10/80) of whom experienced compulsory admission or treatment compared with 27% (21/80) of the control group (risk ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.95, P = 0.028). As a consequence, the mean number of days of detention (days spent as an inpatient while under a section of the Mental Health Act) for the whole intervention group was 14 compared with 31 for the control group (difference 16, 0 to 36, P = 0.04). For those admitted under a section of the Mental Health Act, the number of days of detention was similar in the two groups (means 114 and 117, difference 3, −61 to 67, P = 0.98). The intervention group had fewer admissions (risk ratio 0.69, 0.45 to 1.04, P = 0.07). There was no evidence for differences in bed days (total number of days spent as an inpatient) (means 32 and 36, difference 4, −18 to 26, P = 0.15 for the whole sample; means 107 and 83, difference −24, −72 to 24, P = 0.39 for those admitted). Conclusions Use of joint crisis plans reduced compulsory admissions and treatment in patients with severe mental illness. The reduction in overall admission was less. This is the first structured clinical intervention that seems to reduce compulsory admission and treatment in mental health services.

Stigma and discrimination in mental illness: Time to Change

1928 www.thelancet.com Vol 373 June 6, 2009 7 Windecker S, Serruys PW, Wandel S, et al. Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer versus sirolimus-eluting stent with durable polymer for coronary revascularisations (LEADERS): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 1163–73. 8 Abdulla S, Sagara I, Borrmann S, et al. Effi cacy and safety of artemether-lumefantrine dispersible tablets compared with crushed commercial tablets in African infants and children with uncomplicated malaria: a randomised, single-blind, multicentre trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 1819–27. 9 Sacco RL, Diener H-C, Yusuf S, et al, for the PRoFESS Study Group. Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1238–51. 10 Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, et al. Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2189–94. 11 Fox K, Ford I, Steg PG, et al, on behalf of the BEAUTIFUL Investigators. Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 807–16. 12 Pocock SJ, Elbourne DR. Randomised trials or observational tribulations? N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1907–09.

Mental Illness Stigma, Help Seeking, and Public Health Programs

Globally, more than 70% of people with mental illness receive no treatment from health care staff. Evidence suggests that factors increasing the likelihood of treatment avoidance or delay before presenting for care include (1) lack of knowledge to identify features of mental illnesses, (2) ignorance about how to access treatment, (3) prejudice against people who have mental illness, and (4) expectation of discrimination against people diagnosed with mental illness. In this article, we reviewed the evidence on whether large-scale anti-stigma campaigns could lead to increased levels of help seeking.

Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma and discrimination

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 users 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.

Public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding people with mental illness in England 2009-2012

BACKGROUND Public stigma against people with mental health problems is damaging to individuals with mental illness and is associated with substantial societal burden. AIMS To investigate whether public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour in relation to people with mental health problems have improved among the English population since the inception of the Time To Change programme in 2009. METHOD We analysed longitudinal trends in public knowledge, attitudes and behaviour between 2009 and 2012 among a nationally representative sample of English adults. RESULTS There were improvements in intended behaviour (0.07 standard deviation units, 95% CI 0.01-0.14) and a non-significant trend for improvement in attitudes (P = 0.08) among the English population. There was, however, no significant improvement in knowledge or reported behaviour. CONCLUSIONS The findings provide support for effectiveness of the national Time to Change programme against stigma and discrimination in improving attitudes and intended behaviour, but not knowledge, among the public in England.

Experiences of discrimination among people using mental health services in England 2008-2011

BACKGROUND Research suggests that levels of discrimination against people using mental health services are high; however, reports of these peoples experiences are rare. AIMS To determine whether the Time to Change (TTC) programme target of 5% reduction in discrimination has been achieved. METHOD Separate samples of people using mental health services were interviewed annually from 2008 to 2011 using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale to record instances of discrimination. RESULTS Ninety-one per cent of participants reported one or more experiences of discrimination in 2008 compared with 88% in 2011 (z = -1.9, P = 0.05). The median negative discrimination score was 40% in 2008 and 28% in 2011 (Kruskal-Wallis χ(2) = 83.4, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS The proportion of participants experiencing no discrimination increased significantly over the course of TTC but by less than the initial target. The overall median discrimination score fell by 11.5%. Data from 2010 and 2011 suggest that these gains may be hard to maintain during economic austerity.

Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings

This Review considers the evidence for mental-health-related stigma in health-care and mental-health-care settings. Do mental-health-care and other health-care professionals stigmatise people using their services? If so, what are the effects on quality of mental and physical health care? How can stigma and discrimination in the context of health care be reduced? We show that the contact mental-health-care professionals have with people with mental illness is associated with positive attitudes about civil rights, but does not reduce stigma as does social contact such as with friends or family members with mental illness. Some evidence suggests educational interventions are effective in decreasing stigma especially for general health-care professionals with little or no formal mental health training. Intervention studies are needed to underpin policy; for instance, to decrease disparity in mortality associated with poor access to physical health care for people with mental illness compared with people without mental illness.

Development and Psychometric Properties of the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule

Objective: Stigma has been conceptualized as comprised of 3 constructs: knowledge (ignorance), attitudes (prejudice), and behaviour (discrimination). We are not aware of a psychometrically tested instrument to assess knowledge about mental health problems among the general public. Our paper presents the results of the development stage and the psychometric properties of the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS), an instrument to assess stigma-related mental health knowledge among the general public. Methods: We describe the development of the MAKS in addition to 3 studies that were carried out to evaluate the psychometric properties of the MAKS. Adults aged 25 to 45 years in socioeconomic groups: B, C1, and C2 completed the instrument via face-to-face interview (n = 92) and online (n = 403). Results: Internal reliability and test-retest reliability is moderate to substantial. Validity is supported by extensive review by experts (including service users and international experts in stigma research). Conclusion: The lack of a valid outcome measure to assess knowledge is a shortcoming of evaluations of stigma interventions and programs. The MAKS was found to be a brief and feasible instrument for assessing and tracking stigma-related mental health knowledge. This instrument should be used in conjunction with other attitude- and behaviour-related measures.

Development and psychometric properties of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS): a stigma-related behaviour measure

BACKGROUND Although stigma in relation to mental health has been defined as including components of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, no psychometrically tested instrument to assess behavioural discrimination at the population level has been developed. This paper presents details of the development and psychometric properties of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS), an instrument based on the Star Social Distance Scale, to assess reported (past and current) and intended (future) behavioural discrimination among the general public against people with mental health problems. METHODS Three studies were carried out to evaluate psychometric properties of the RIBS (Study 1, n = 92; Study 2, n = 37; Study 3, n = 403). Adults aged 25-45 in socio-economic groups: B, C1 and C2 (middle-income groups) took part in development and testing of the RIBS. RESULTS Internal consistency and test-retest reliability is moderate/substantial. Strong consensus validity was found, as rated by service users/consumers and international experts in stigma research. CONCLUSIONS Use of a behavioural outcome may be important to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions intended to reduce stigma and/or discrimination related to mental illness. The RIBS was found to be a brief, feasible and psychometrically robust measure for assessing mental health-related reported and intended behavioural discrimination.

Influence of Time to Change's social marketing interventions on stigma in England 2009-2011

BACKGROUND Englands Time To Change (TTC) social marketing campaign emphasised social contact between people with and without mental health problems to reduce stigma and discrimination. AIMS We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the mass media component and also that of the mass social contact events. METHOD Online interviews were performed before and after each burst of mass media social marketing to evaluate changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviour and associations between campaign awareness and outcomes. Participants at social contact events were asked about the occurrence and quality of contact, attitudes, readiness to discuss mental health and intended behaviour towards people with mental health problems. RESULTS Prompted campaign awareness was 38-64%. A longitudinal improvement was noted for one intended behaviour item but not for knowledge or attitudes. Campaign awareness was positively associated with greater knowledge (β = 0.80, 95% CI 0.52-1.08) and more favourable attitudes (commonality OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.10-1.70; dangerousness OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.22-1.63) and intended behaviour (β = 0.75, 95% CI 0.53-0.96). Social contact at events demonstrated a positive impact (M = 2.68) v. no contact (M = 2.42) on perceived attitude change; t(211) = 3.30, P = 0.001. Contact quality predicted more positive attitude change (r = 0.33, P<0.01) and greater confidence to challenge stigma (r = 0.38, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS The favourable short-term consequences of the social marketing campaign suggest that social contact can be used by anti-stigma programmes to reduce stigma.