Diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders: a survey of Singapore mental health professionals

Background: A series of surveys of mental health literacy have been undertaken in Australia, involving members of the general public as well as general practitioners and mental health professionals, whereby respondents consider vignettes of depression and of schizophrenia, offer a diagnosis and rate a series of possible interventions for their judged helpfulness. A similar survey was undertaken in Singapore and is reported in this paper. Methods: The survey was undertaken at a large state psychiatric hospital with staff (psychiatrists, allied health professionals, psychiatrically and generally trained nursing staff) rating a vignette of mania, in addition to the vignettes derived in Australia for depression and schizophrenia, and with the Australian intervention options extended somewhat to respect Singapore facilities. Results: Responses of those in the four professional groups were compared. The psychiatrists were highly accurate in generating diagnoses, other staff somewhat less so for diagnosing depression (with a percentage instead choosing a diagnosis of stress) and mania (with a percentage instead diagnosing a schizophrenic condition). Reported helpfulness ratings identified those interventions judged consensually as likely to be helpful or harmful, as well as establishing some differences across the four professional groups. Conclusions: The consensus decisions of helpful treatments for depression and schizophrenia revealed very similar findings to judgements made by Australian professionals. The treated outcome of schizophrenia was judged as somewhat worse than that for mania and depression. While non-medical staff differed from psychiatrists in judging the comparative utility of some drug interventions and lifestyle issues, there was clear evidence of a relatively dominant 'medical model' to recommended treatments, while traditional healing practices and services were rated as distinctly unhelpful.

Perceived need for mental health care, findings from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being

Background. The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being was designed to detect and describe psychiatric morbidity, associated disability, service use and perceived need for care. The survey employed a single-phase interview methodology, delivering a field questionnaire to a clustered probability sample of 10641 Australians. Perceived need was sampled with an instrument designed for this survey, the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ). This questionnaire gathers information about five categories of perceived need, assigning each to one of four levels of perceived need. Reliability and validity studies showed satisfactory performance of the instrument. Methods. Perceived need for mental health care in the Australian population has been analysed using PNCQ data, relating this to diagnostic and service utilization data from the above survey. Results. The survey findings indicate that an estimated 13.8 % of the Australian population have perceived need for mental health care. Those who met interview criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis and also expressed perceived need make up 9.9 % of the population. An estimated 11.0% of the population are cases of untreated prevalence, a minority (3.6% of the population) of whom expressed perceived need for mental health care. Among persons using services, those without a psychiatric diagnosis based on interview criteria (4.4% of the population), showed high levels of perceived met need. Conclusions. The overall rate of perceived need found by this methodology lies between those found in the USA and Canada. The findings suggest that service use in the absence of diagnosis elicited by survey questionnaires may often represent successful intervention. In the survey, untreated prevalence was commonly not accompanied by perceived need for mental health care.

A comparative mental health literacy survey of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in Singapore

Objective: The objectives of this study are, first, to replicate and extend an Australian approach to assessing mental health literacy by studying a sample of Singapore mental health professionals, and to focus on differences between judgements made by the psychiatrists in comparison with the other mental health professionals. Second, to compare the psychiatrists' judgements with those of Australian psychiatrists. Method: The Australian questionnaire, assessing responses in relation to vignettes of major depression and to schizophrenia was extended by adding a third vignette of mania, and by the addition of several region-specific response options. Nearly 500 questionnaires were distributed to representative staff (psychiatrists, nurses and allied health) of a large psychiatric institution in Singapore, with a response rate of 81%. Psychiatrists' judgements were compared with all other hospital staff, and with Australian psychiatrists' judgements. Results: The two principal contrast groups (Singapore psychiatrists and other Singapore mental health professionals) differed slightly in terms of diagnostic accuracy. The psychiatrists differed in favouring a more professionally focused model of intervention, while both professional groups viewed traditional healers and their practices as distinctly unhelpful. Direct comparison of psychiatrist ratings generated in Singapore and in Australia revealed quite similar response profiles. Conclusions: In addition to generating data of some intrinsic importance, comparison with Australian survey data allows the potential impact of regional and cultural differences, as well as of varying psychiatric practices, to be identified. Responses identified more similarities than differences in the judgements of the psychiatrists from the two countries.

Assessing perceived need for mental health care in a community survey: development of the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ)

Background: The Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire (PNCQ) was designed for the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. The PNCQ complemented collection of data on diagnosis and disability with the survey participants' perceptions of their needs for mental health care and the meeting of those needs. The four-stage design of the PNCQ mimics a conversational exploration of the topic of perceived needs. Five categories of perceived need are each assigned to one of four levels of perceived need (no need, unmet need, partially met need and met need). For unmet need and partially met need, information on barriers to care is collected, Methods: Inter-rater reliabilities of perceived needs assessed by the PNCQ were examined in a study of 145 anxiety clinic attenders. Construct validity of these items was tested, using a multi-trait multi-method approach and hypotheses regarding extreme groups, in a study with a sample of 51 general practice and community psychiatric service patients. Results: The instrument is brief to administer and has proved feasible for use in various settings. Inter-rater reliabilities for major categories, measured by the kappa statistic, exceeded 0.60 in most cases; for the summary category of all perceived needs, inter-rater reliability was 0.62. The multi-trait multi-method approach lent support to the construct validity of the instrument, as did findings in extreme groups. Conclusions: The PNCQ shows acceptable feasibility, reliability and validity, adding to the range of assessment tools available for epidemiological and health services research.

Personality disorders in the community: a report from the Australian national survey of mental health and wellbeing

Background: The first set of aims of the present study was to determine the prevalence of personality disorders (PDs) in a nation, and gender differences in the types and numbers of PDs endorsed. The second set of aims was to establish the relationship of PD to other, non-PD disorders, physical conditions, and disability. Method: Data were obtained from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, conducted between May and August 1997. A stratified random sample of households was generated, from which all those aged 18 or over were considered potential interviewees. There were 10,641 respondents to the survey, and this represented a response rate of 78%. Each interviewee was asked 59 questions indexing specific ICD-10 PD criteria. Results: Of the total survey sample, 704 persons had at least one PD. Using weighted replicate weights, it was estimated that approximately 6.5% of the adult population of Australia have one or more PDs (lifetime prevalence). Persons with PD were more likely to be younger, male, and not married, and to have an anxiety disorder, an affective disorder, a substance use disorder, or a physical condition. They were also more likely to have greater disability than those without PD. Conclusion: The study is the first nationwide survey of mental disorders conducted within Australia. It provides an estimate of the prevalence of the various types of PD. The survey has considerable limitations, however, and these are discussed.

The role of economic evaluation in mental health care

Objective: A consequence of the integration of psychiatry into acute and public health medicine is that psychiatrists are being asked to evaluate their services. There is pressure on mental health-care systems because it is recognized that funds should be directed where they can provide the best health outcomes, and also because there are resource constraints which limit our capacity to meet all demands for health care. This pressure can be responded to by evaluation which demonstrates the effectiveness and efficiency of psychiatric treatment. This paper seeks to remind psychiatrists of the fundamental principles of economic evaluation in the hope that these will enable psychiatrists to understand the methods used in evaluation and to work comfortably with evaluators. Method: The paper reviews the basic principles behind economic evaluation, illustrating these with reference to case studies. It describes: (i) the cost of the burden of illness and treatment, and how these costs are measured; (ii) the measurement of treatment outcomes, both as changes in health status and as resources saved; and (iii) the various types of economic evaluation, including cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis. Results: The advice in the paper provides psychiatrists with the necessary background to work closely with evaluators. A checklist of the critical questions to be addressed is provided as a guide for those undertaking economic evaluations. Conclusions: If psychiatrists are willing to learn the basic principles of economic evaluation and to apply these, they can respond to the challenges of evaluation.