Cancer and serious mental illness – patient, caregiver and professional perspectives: study protocol

Aim: To explore the experience of serious mental illness and cancer from the perspective of patients, significant others and healthcare professionals involved in their care. Background: Serious mental illness is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. Those suffering from this comorbidity receive fewer specialist interventions and die earlier than the general population. Prior qualitative research in this area has comprised of a single study focussing on healthcare professionals and there is little evidence regarding the experiences of patients and caregivers.Design: A qualitative exploration using approximately 36 semi-structured interviews.Methods: Semi-structured digitally recorded interviews conducted with: adults living with serious mental illness and diagnosed with cancer; those providing them with informal support and care; and healthcare professionals. Questions will focus on the experience of having cancer and serious mental illness or caring for someone with this comorbidity, experiences of healthcare and priorities for patients and carers. Framework analysis will be used. Research Ethics Committee and Trust Research & Development approval was obtained. A steering group comprising six people with experience of either cancer or mental illness provided feedback and ratified the patient information sheets and interview schedules. Discussion: There is a paucity of research addressing stakeholder perspectives on the experience of cancer and of cancer services for people with serious mental illness. Dissemination of findings will inform practice relating to the care of an often neglected population, informing better support for their significant others and the professionals involved in their care.

Risk, Recovery and Capacity: Competing or Complementary Approaches to Mental Health Social Work

Mental health social workers have a central role in providing support to people with mental health problems and in the use of coercion aimed at dealing with risk. Mental health services have traditionally focused on monitoring symptoms and ascertaining the risks people may present to themselves and/or others. This well-intentioned but negative focus on deficits has contributed to stigma, discrimination and exclusion experienced by service users. Emerging understandings of risk also suggest that our inability to accurately predict the future makes risk a problematic foundation for compulsory intervention. It is therefore argued that alternative approaches are needed to make issues of power and inequality transparent. This article focuses on two areas of practice: the use of recovery based approaches, which promote supported decision making and inclusion; and the assessment of a person’s ability to make decisions, their mental capacity, as a less discriminatory gateway criterion than risk for compulsory intervention.

Findings from a systematic review: ‘Cancer and people with Serious Mental Illness.’

The impact of organisational factors and government policy on psychiatric nurses family focused practice with parents who have mental illness, their dependent children and families in Ireland

Government policy and organizational factors influence family focused practice in adult mental health services. However, how these aspects shape psychiatric nurses’ practice with parents who have mental illness, their dependent children and families is less well understood. Drawing on the findings of a qualitative study, this article explores the way in which Irish policy and organizational factors might influence psychiatric nurses’ family focused practice, and whether (and how) family focused practice might be further promoted. A purposive sample of 14 psychiatric nurses from eight mental health services completed semi-structured interviews in 2013. The analysis was inductive and presented as thematic networks. Both groups described how policies and organizational culture enabled and/or hindered family focused practice, with differences between community and acute participants seen. The need to develop national and international policies along with practices to embed information and support regarding parenting into ongoing care is implicated in this study.

Individual factors and perceived community characteristics in relation to mental health and mental well-being

Background
It has been argued that though correlated with mental health, mental well-being is a distinct entity. Despite the wealth of literature on mental health, less is known about mental well-being. Mental health is something experienced by individuals, whereas mental well-being can be assessed at the population level. Accordingly it is important to differentiate the individual and population level factors (environmental and social) that could be associated with mental health and well-being, and as people living in deprived areas have a higher prevalence of poor mental health, these relationships should be compared across different levels of neighbourhood deprivation.

Methods
A cross-sectional representative random sample of 1,209 adults from 62 Super Output Areas (SOAs) in Belfast, Northern Ireland (Feb 2010 – Jan 2011) were recruited in the PARC Study. Interview-administered questionnaires recorded data on socio-demographic characteristics, health-related behaviours, individual social capital, self-rated health, mental health (SF-8) and mental well-being (WEMWBS). Multi-variable linear regression analyses, with inclusion of clustering by SOAs, were used to explore the associations between individual and perceived community characteristics and mental health and mental well-being, and to investigate how these associations differed by the level of neighbourhood deprivation.

Results
Thirty-eight and 30 % of variability in the measures of mental well-being and mental health, respectively, could be explained by individual factors and the perceived community characteristics. In the total sample and stratified by neighbourhood deprivation, age, marital status and self-rated health were associated with both mental health and well-being, with the ‘social connections’ and local area satisfaction elements of social capital also emerging as explanatory variables. An increase of +1 in EQ-5D-3 L was associated with +1SD of the population mean in both mental health and well-being. Similarly, a change from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’ for local area satisfaction would result in +8.75 for mental well-being, but only in the more affluent of areas.

Conclusions
Self-rated health was associated with both mental health and mental well-being. Of the individual social capital explanatory variables, ‘social connections’ was more important for mental well-being. Although similarities in the explanatory variables of mental health and mental well-being exist, socio-ecological interventions designed to improve them may not have equivalent impacts in rich and poor neighbourhoods.

Residential segregation, dividing walls and mental health: A population-based record linkage study

Background
Neighbourhood segregation has been described as a fundamental determinant of physical health, but literature on its effect on mental health is less clear. Whilst most previous research has relied on conceptualized measures of segregation, Northern Ireland is unique as it contains physical manifestations of segregation in the form of segregation barriers (or “peacelines”) which can be used to accurately identify residential segregation.
Methods
We used population-wide health record data on over 1.3 million individuals, to analyse the effect of residential segregation, measured by both the formal Dissimilarity Index and by proximity to a segregation barrier, on the likelihood of poor mental health.
Results
Using multi-level logistic regression models we found residential segregation measured by the Dissimilarity Index poses no additional risk to the likelihood of poor mental health after adjustment for area-level deprivation. However, residence in an area segregated by a “peaceline” increases the likelihood of antidepressant medication by 19% (OR=1.19, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.23) and anxiolytic medication by 39% (OR=1.39, 95% CI: 1.32, 1.48), even after adjustment for gender, age, conurbation, deprivation and crime.
Conclusions
Living in an area segregated by a ‘peaceline’ is detrimental to mental health suggesting segregated areas characterised by a heightened sense of ‘other’ pose a greater risk to mental health. The difference in results based on segregation measure highlights the importance of choice of measure when studying segregation.