Family impact in intellectual disability, severe mental health disorders and mental health disorders in ID. A comparison

Family impact (or family burden) is a concept born in the field of mental health that has successfully been exported to the ambit of intellectual disability (ID). However, differences in family impact associated with severe mental health disorders (schizophrenia), to ID or to mental health problems in ID should be expected. Seventy-two adults with intellectual disability clients of the Carmen Pardo-Valcarce Foundation's sheltered workshops and vocational employment programmes in Madrid (Spain), 203 adults diagnosed with schizophrenia from four Spanish Community Mental Health Services (Barcelona, Madrid, Granada and Navarra) and 90 adults with mental health problems in ID (MH-ID) from the Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu Health Care Site in Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona (Spain) were asked to participate in the present study along with their main caregivers. Family impact experienced by caregivers was assessed with the ECFOS-II/SOFBI-II scale (Entrevista de Carga Familiar Objetiva y Subjetiva/Objective and Subjective Family Burden Interview). In global terms, results showed that the higher family impact was found between caregivers to people with MH-ID. The interaction of both conditions (ID and mental health problems) results in a higher degree of burden on families than when both conditions are presented separately. There was also an impact in caregivers to people with schizophrenia, this impact being higher than the one detected in caregivers to people with intellectual disability. Needs of caregivers to people with disability should be addressed specifically in order to effectively support families.

Children left behind during immigration: repercussions on the mental health of Latin-American mothers and fathers

Emigrating and having to leave children behind may be a risk factor for the mental health of immigrants. This study aimed to compare the psychological symptoms reported by immigrants mothers and fathers who took their children with them with those who left their children behind. The sample comprised 213 Latin American immigrants (123 women and 90 men). The results showed that mothers who did not have children with them reported more psychological symptoms than those who did. Few differences were observed in the case of fathers, except that those who had their children with them reported more symptoms related with somatization. After controlling for possible confounding variables ('time since immigration', ·having a job', 'legal status', and social support') it is concluded that for mothers not being accompanied by own's children explains the largest proportion of the psychological synptoms analyzed, although the time since immigration also accounts for some of the variance in the case of depressive sympthomatology and general distress. It is likely that the despair and frustation felt by mothers grows as time goes on and they remain unable to reunite the family. These results may be useful in terms of designing prevention and intervention programs with immigrants mothers.

Assessing positive mental health in people with chronic physical health problems: correlations with socio-demographic variables and physical health status

Background: A holistic perspective on health implies giving careful consideration to the relationship between physical and mental health. In this regard the present study sought to determine the level of Positive Mental Health (PMH) among people with chronic physical health problems, and to examine the relationship between the observed levels of PMH and both physical health status and socio-demographic variables. Methods: The study was based on the Multifactor Model of Positive Mental Health (Lluch, 1999), which comprises six factors: Personal Satisfaction (F1), Prosocial Attitude (F2), Self-control (F3), Autonomy (F4), Problem-solving and Self-actualization (F5), and Interpersonal Relationship Skills (F6). The sample comprised 259 adults with chronic physical health problems who were recruited through a primary care center in the province of Barcelona (Spain). Positive mental health was assessed by means of the Positive Mental Health Questionnaire (Lluch, 1999). Results: Levels of PMH differed, either on the global scale or on specific factors, in relation to the following variables: age: global PMH scores decreased with age (r=-0.129; p=0.038); b) gender: men scored higher on F1 (t=2.203; p=0.028) and F4 (t=3.182; p=0.002), while women scored higher on F2 (t -3.086; p=0.002) and F6 (t=-2.744; p=0.007); c) number of health conditions: the fewer the number of health problems the higher the PMH score on F5 (r=-0.146; p=0.019); d) daily medication: polymedication patients had lower PMH scores, both globally and on various factors; e) use of analgesics: occasional use of painkillers was associated with higher PMH scores on F1 (t=-2.811; p=0.006). There were no significant differences in global PMH scores according to the type of chronic health condition. The only significant difference in the analysis by factors was that patients with hypertension obtained lower PMH scores on the factor Autonomy (t=2.165; p=0.032). Conclusions: Most people with chronic physical health problems have medium or high levels of PMH. The variables that adversely affect PMH are old age, polypharmacy and frequent consumption of analgesics. The type of health problem does not influence the levels of PMH. Much more extensive studies with samples without chronic pathology are now required in order to be able to draw more robust conclusions.

Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method

Objectives: The objectives of this study is to review the set of criteria of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for priority-setting in research with addition of new criteria if necessary, and to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of the final priority score. Methods: Based on the evaluation of 199 research topics, forty-five experts identified additional criteria for priority-setting, rated their relevance, and ranked and weighted them in a three-round modified Delphi technique. A final priority score was developed and evaluated. Internal consistency, test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Correlation with experts’ overall qualitative topic ratings were assessed as an approximation to validity. Results: All seven original IOM criteria were considered relevant and two new criteria were added (“potential for translation into practice”, and “need for knowledge”). Final ranks and relative weights differed from those of the original IOM criteria: “research impact on health outcomes” was considered the most important criterion (4.23), as opposed to “burden of disease” (3.92). Cronbach’s alpha (0.75) and test–retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.66) for the final set of criteria were acceptable. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for overall assessment of priority was 0.66. Conclusions: A reliable instrument for prioritizing topics in clinical and health services research has been developed. Further evaluation of its validity and impact on selecting research topics is required