Access to a Car and the Self-Reported Health and Mental Health of People Aged 65 and Older in Northern Ireland

This article examines relationships between access to a car and the self- reported health and mental health of older people. The analysis is based on a sample of N 1⁄4 65,601 individuals aged 65 years and older from the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study linked to 2001 and 2011 census returns. The findings from hierarchical linear and binary logistic multilevel path models indicate that having no access to a car is related to a considerable health and mental health disadvantage particularly for older people who live alone. Rural–urban health and mental health differences are mediated by access to a car. The findings support approaches that emphasize the importance of autonomy and independence for the well-being of older people and indicate that not having access to a car can be a problem for older people not only in rural but also in intermediate and urban areas, if no sufficient alternative forms of mobility are provided.

Applying the recovery approach to the interface between mental health and child protection services

There are a range of theoretical approaches which may inform the interface between child protection and adult mental health services. These theoretical perspectives tend to be focused on either child protection or mental health with no agreed integrating framework. The interface continues to be identified, in research, case management reviews and inquiry reports, as complex and problematic. This paper proposes that more positive, integrated approaches to service user engagement, risk assessment and management may lead to better outcomes in working with families experiencing parental mental health problems and child protection concerns. It is proposed that the recovery approach, increasingly used in mental health services, can inform the processes of engagement, assessment and intervention at the mental health and child protection interface. The article provides a critical overview of the recovery approach and compares it with approaches typifying interventions in child protection work to date. Relevant research and inquiries are also examined as a context for how to more effectively respond to cases where there are issues around parental mental health problems and child protection. The article concludes with case material to illustrate the potential application of the recovery approach to the interface between mental health and child protection services.

Regress? React? Resolve?: An evaluation of mental health service provision in Northern Ireland

Report prepared for Action Mental Health by Queen’s University Belfast

Differences Between Irish and Australian Psychiatric Nurses' Family Focused Practice in Adult Mental Health Services

Psychiatric nurses’ practice with parents who have mental illness, their children and families is an important issue internationally. This study provides a comparison of Irish and Australian psychiatric nurses’ family focused practices in adult mental health services. Three hundred and forty three nurses across Ireland and 155 from Australia completed the Family Focused Mental Health Practice Questionnaire. Cross-country comparisons revealed significant differences, in terms of family focused skill, knowledge, confidence and practice. Australian psychiatric nurses engaged in higher family focused practice compared to Irish nurses. The comparative differences between countries may be attributable to differences in training, workplace support and policy.

Mental illness or mental distress; stigma and concealment in University students - a discussion paper

This discussion paper addresses the issue of mental distress, sometimes mis- perceived or misinterpreted as mental illness. The
focus is on positive psychology. Reflecting in part on a UK-based study with younger University students studying to health
related degrees, nursing, midwifery and medicine (N = 12), many of the students were apparently suffering dis-stress with
disordered eating at least in part being used as a coping mechanism. However notwithstanding that they were at the end of
their first year studies in health, a significant number of the students interpreted their approach to eating as a mental illness.
Consequently, many within the study felt stigmatised and were reluctant to acknowledge certainly to the University health care
authorities that there was an issue; perceiving both academic and career/professional consequences of mental health labelling. The
paper approaches the issue of mental health from a health promoting perspective, reflecting against the theory of salutogenesis
and its focus within the three dimensions of comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness as an approach to building
resilience and managing stressors to better facilitate a sense of coherence. Complex manifestations of distress and poor coping
mechanisms can in some cases be misinterpreted or miss perceived as mental illness. Promoting mental health and reducing the
stigma of mental illness or the misperception of mental distress as mental illness, would need to be addressed in order to more
effectively outreach certainly to younger University students who might be at risk. The focus should be on how better to promote
their sense of coherence.

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.’