105 resultados para SEVERE ASTHMA
Resumo:
Background: This study aimed to determine whether subjective dimensions of recovery such as empowerment are associated with self-report of more objective indicators such as level of participation in the community and income from employment. A secondary aim was to investigate the extent to which diagnosis or other consumer characteristics mediated any relationship between these variables. Methods: The Community Integration Measure, the Empowerment Scale, the Recovery Assessment Scale, and the Camberwell Assessment of Needs Short Appraisal Schedule were administered to a convenience sample of 161 consumers with severe mental illness. Results: The majority of participants had a primary diagnosis of schizophreniform, anxiety/depression or bipolar affective disorder. The Empowerment Scale was quite strongly correlated with the Recovery Assessment Scale and the Community Integration Measure. Participants with a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder had signifi cantly higher recovery and empowerment scores than participants with schizophrenia or depression. Both empowerment and recovery scores were significantly higher for people engaged in paid employment than for those receiving social security benefits. Conclusions: The measurement of subjective dimensions of recovery such as empowerment has validity in evaluation of global recovery for people with severe mental illness. A diagnosis of bipolar disorder is associated with higher scores on subjective and objective indicators of recovery.
Resumo:
A survey was completed by 122 case managers describing the types of homework assignments commonly used with individuals diagnosed with severe mental illness (SMI). Homework types were categorized using a 12-item homework description taxonomy and in relation to the 22 domains of the Camberwell Assessment of Need (CAN). Case managers predominately reported using behaviourally based homework tasks such as scheduling activities and the development of personal hygiene skills. Homework focused on CAN areas of need in relation to Company, Psychological Distress, Psychotic Symptoms and Daytime Activities. The applications of the taxonomy for both researchers and case managers are discussed.
Resumo:
Objectives: Comparatively few people with severe mental illness are employed despite evidence that many people within this group wish to obtain, can obtain and sustain employment, and that employment can contribute to recovery. This investigation aimed to: (i) describe the current policy and service environment within which people with severe mental illness receive employment services; (ii) identify evidence-based practices that improve employment outcomes for people with severe mental illness; (iii) determine the extent to which the current Australian policy environment is consistent with the implementation of evidence-based employment services for people with severe mental illness; and (iv) identify methods and priorities for enhancing employment services for Australians with severe mental illness through implementation of evidence-based practices. Method: Current Australian practices were identified, having reference to policy and legal documents, funding body requirements and anecdotal reports. Evidence-based employment services for people with severe mental illness were identified through examination of published reviews and the results of recent controlled trials. Results: Current policy settings support the provision of employment services for people with severe mental illness separate from clinical services. Recent studies have identified integration of clinical and employment services as a major factor in the effectiveness of employment services. This is usually achieved through co-location of employment and mental health services. Conclusions: Optimal evidence-based employment services are needed by Australians with severe mental illness. Providing optimal services is a challenge in the current policy environment. Service integration may be achieved through enhanced intersectoral links between employment and mental health service providers as well as by co-locating employment specialists within a mental health care setting.
Resumo:
Significant numbers of children are severely abused and neglected by parents and caregivers. Infants and very young children are the most vulnerable and are unable to seek help. To identify these situations and enable child protection and the provision of appropriate assistance, many jurisdictions have enacted ‘mandatory reporting laws’ requiring designated professionals such as doctors, nurses, police and teachers to report suspected cases of severe child abuse and neglect. Other jurisdictions have not adopted this legislative approach, at least partly motivated by a concern that the laws produce dramatic increases in unwarranted reports, which, it is argued, lead to investigations which infringe on people’s privacy, cause trauma to innocent parents and families, and divert scarce government resources from deserving cases. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which opposition to mandatory reporting laws is valid based on the claim that the laws produce ‘overreporting’. The first part of this paper revisits the original mandatory reporting laws, discusses their development into various current forms, explains their relationship with policy and common law reporting obligations, and situates them in the context of their place in modern child protection systems. This part of the paper shows that in general, contemporary reporting laws have expanded far beyond their original conceptualisation, but that there is also now a deeper understanding of the nature, incidence, timing and effects of different types of severe maltreatment, an awareness that the real incidence of maltreatment is far higher than that officially recorded, and that there is strong evidence showing the majority of identified cases of severe maltreatment are the result of reports by mandated reporters. The second part of this paper discusses the apparent effect of mandatory reporting laws on ‘overreporting’ by referring to Australian government data about reporting patterns and outcomes, with a particular focus on New South Wales. It will be seen that raw descriptive data about report numbers and outcomes appear to show that reporting laws produce both desirable consequences (identification of severe cases) and problematic consequences (increased numbers of unsubstantiated reports). Yet, to explore the extent to which the data supports the overreporting claim, and because numbers of unsubstantiated reports alone cannot demonstrate overreporting, this part of the paper asks further questions of the data. Who makes reports, about which maltreatment types, and what are the outcomes of those reports? What is the nature of these reports; for example, to what extent are multiple numbers of reports made about the same child? What meaning can be attached to an ‘unsubstantiated’ report, and can such reports be used to show flaws in reporting effectiveness and problems in reporting laws? It will be suggested that available evidence from Australia is not sufficiently detailed or strong to demonstrate the overreporting claim. However, it is also apparent that, whether adopting an approach based on public health and or other principles, much better evidence about reporting needs to be collected and analyzed. As well, more nuanced research needs to be conducted to identify what can reasonably be said to constitute ‘overreports’, and efforts must be made to minimize unsatisfactory reporting practice, informed by the relevant jurisdiction’s context and aims. It is also concluded that, depending on the jurisdiction, the available data may provide useful indicators of positive, negative and unanticipated effects of specific components of the laws, and of the strengths, weaknesses and needs of the child protection system.