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.

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

Illinois submission for ... under Public law 99-660 "The State Comprehensive Mental Health Services Plan Act of 1986" and Public law 601-639 "Mental Health Amendments of 1990" for adults with serious mental illness.

Description based on: Sept. 30,1991.

Patients' and health professionals' views on primary care for people with serious mental illness:focus group study

Objective: To explore the experience of providing and receiving primary care from the perspectives of primary care health professionals and patients with serious mental illness respectively. Design: Qualitative study consisting of six patient groups, six health professional groups, and six combined focus groups. Setting: Six primary care trusts in the West Midlands. Participants: Forty five patients with serious mental illness, 39 general practitioners (GPs), and eight practice nurses. Results: Most health professionals felt that the care of people with serious mental illness was too specialised for primary care. However, most patients viewed primary care as the cornerstone of their health care and preferred to consult their own GP, who listened and was willing to learn, rather than be referred to a different GP with specific mental health knowledge. Swift access was important to patients, with barriers created by the effects of the illness and the noisy or crowded waiting area. Some patients described how they exaggerated symptoms ("acted up") to negotiate an urgent appointment, a strategy that was also employed by some GPs to facilitate admission to secondary care. Most participants felt that structured reviews of care had value. However, whereas health professionals perceived serious mental illness as a lifelong condition, patients emphasised the importance of optimism in treatment and hope for recovery. Conclusions: Primary care is of central importance to people with serious mental illness. The challenge for health professionals and patients is to create a system in which patients can see a health professional when they want to without needing to exaggerate their symptoms. The importance that patients attach to optimism in treatment, continuity of care, and listening skills compared with specific mental health knowledge should encourage health professionals in primary care to play a greater role in the care of patients with serious mental illness.

'Listen to my madness':understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness

This article explores the salience of disability theory for understanding the experiences of people with serious mental illness. Drawing on data from a focus group study, we suggest that users experience both impairment (as embodied irrationality) which can, in itself, be oppressive, and also have to manage their lives within a largely disabling society. We outline some of the strategies adopted by users to manage their situation and ensure they access and receive health services, and illustrate how these are a result of the complex relationship between disability and impairment. We suggest that using a framework of the social model of disability provides a useful way of understanding and making sense of the experience of users with serious mental illness. © Blackwell Publishing Ltd/Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness 2005.

Managing crisis:the role of primary care for people with serious mental illness

Background and Objectives: More than 30% of patients with serious mental illness in the United Kingdom now receive all their health care solely from primary care. This study explored the process of managing acute mental health crises from the dual perspective of patients and primary care health professionals. Methods: Eighteen focus groups involving 45 patients, 39 general practitioners, and eight practice nurses were held between May and November 2002 in six Primary Care Trusts across the British West Midlands. The topic guide explored perceptions of gold standard care, current issues and critical incidents in receiving/providing care, and ideas on improving services. Results: Themes relevant to the management of acute crisis included issues of process, such as access, advocacy, communication, continuity, and coordination of care; the development of more structured care that might reduce the need for crisis responses; and issues raised by the development of a more structured approach to care. Conclusions: Access to services is a complicated yet crucial feature of managing care in a crisis, with patients identifying barriers at the level of primary care and health professionals at the interface with secondary care. The development of more structured systems as a solution may generate its own ethical and pragmatic challenges.

Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness

Background People diagnosed with serious mental illnesses (SMIs) such as schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder are frequently treated with antipsychotics. National guidance advises the use of shared decision-making (SDM) in antipsychotic prescribing. There is currently little data on the opinions of health professionals on the role of SDM. Objective To explore the views and experiences of UK mental health pharmacists regarding the use of SDM in antipsychotic prescribing in people diagnosed with SMI. Setting The study was conducted by interviewing secondary care mental health pharmacists in the UK to obtain qualitative data. Methods Semi-structured interviews were recorded. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted using the method of constant comparison. Main outcome measure Themes evolving from mental health pharmacists on SDM in relation to antipsychotic prescribing in people with SMI. Results Thirteen mental health pharmacists were interviewed. SDM was perceived to be linked to positive clinical outcomes including adherence, service user satisfaction and improved therapeutic relations. Despite more prescribers and service users supporting SDM, it was not seen as being practised as widely as it could be; this was attributed to a number of barriers, most predominantly issues surrounding service user’s lacking capacity to engage in SDM and time pressures on clinical staff. The need for greater effort to work around the issues, engage service users and adopt a more inter-professional approach was conveyed. Conclusion The mental health pharmacists support SDM for antipsychotic prescribing, believing that it improves outcomes. However, barriers are seen to limit implementation. More research is needed into overcoming the barriers and measuring the benefits of SDM, along with exploring a more inter-professional approach to SDM.

Mental Health Pharmacists Views on Shared Decision-Making for Antipsychotics in Serious Mental Illness

A qualitative study to look at the views of pharmacists working in mental health settings in relation to shared decision making, particularly as applied to decisions about the prescription of antipsychotics for those diagnosed with severe and enduring mental illnesses.

Current evidence on integrated treatment for serious mental disorder and substance misuse

Substance misuse in people with serious mental disorders is common and has a wideranging negative impact. The multiplicity of problems suggests that this comorbidity is better conceptualized as a type of complex disorder than by ‘dual diagnosis’. Problems with sequential and parallel treatments have led to the development of integrated approaches, with one practitioner or team addressing both the substance use and mental disorder. These treatments are typically characterized by motivation enhancement, minimizing treatment-related stress, emphasizing harm reduction as well as abstinence, and assertive outreach. A review of published randomized trials demonstrates that superior effects to controls are rarely consistent across treatment foci and over time. While motivational interventions assist engagement, more intervention is usually required for integrated treatment programs to improve long-term outcomes more than control conditions. More intensive case management does not consistently improve impact, but extended cognitive-behavioral therapies have promise. Suggestions for maximizing treatment effects and improving research evidence are provided.

Implementing low intensity CBT in case management of clients with severe mental illness

In a previous chapter (Dean and Kavanagh, Chapter 37), the authors made a case for applying low intensity (LI) cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) to people with serious mental illness (SMI). As in other populations, LI CBT interventions typically deal with circumscribed problems or behaviours. LI CBT retains an emphasis on self-management, has restricted content and segment length, and does not necessarily require extensive CBT training. In applying these interventions to SMI, adjustments may be needed to address cognitive and symptomatic difficulties often faced by these groups. What may take a single session in a less affected population may require several sessions or a thematic application of the strategy within case management. In some cases, the LI CBT may begin to appear more like a high-intensity (HI) intervention, albeit simple and with many LI CBT characteristics still retained. So, if goal setting were introduced in one or two sessions, it could clearly be seen as an LI intervention. When applied to several different situations and across many sessions, it may be indistinguishable from a simple HI treatment, even if it retains the same format and is effectively applied by a practitioner with limited CBT training. ----- ----- In some ways, LI CBT should be well suited to case management of patients with SMI. treating staff typically have heavy workloads, and find it difficult to apply time-consuming treatments (Singh et al. 2003). LI CBT may allow provision of support to greater numbers of service users, and allow staff to spend more time on those who need intensive and sustained support. However, the introduction of any change in practice has to address significant challenges, and LI CBT is no exception. ----- ----- Many of the issues that we face in applying LI CBT to routine case management in a mnetal health service and their potential solutions are essentially the same as in a range of other problem domains (Turner and Sanders 2006)- and, indeed, are similar to those in any adoption of innovation (Rogers 2003). Over the last 20 years, several commentators have described barriers to implementing evidence-based innovations in mental health services (Corrigan et al. 1992; Deane et al. 2006; Kavanagh et al. 1993). The aim of the current chapter is to present a cognitive behavioural conceptualisation of problems and potential solutions for dissemination of LI CBT.

Bullying in children and adolescents : a modifiable risk factor for mental illness

It is a serious concern to health practitioners and policymakers that, in spite of substantial investment, there has been no meaningful decline in the prevalence of mental illness in Australia (Slade et al., 2009). It is now understood that a complex array of biopsychosocial factors confer varying degrees of risk of mental illness. Genetic predisposition, obstetric complications, environmental toxins, poverty, developmental delay, substance abuse, exposure to loss and trauma, chaotic family environments with accompanying abuse and neglect, chronic physical illness and maladaptive interpersonal interactions all contribute to an increased risk of developing mental disorders (Kieling et al., 2011). Bullying in childhood and adolescence is an identified risk factor for mental disorders, suicide attempts and drug and alcohol problems (Copeland et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2013)...

Collaborative recovery: An integrative model for working with individuals that experience chronic or recurring mental illness.

Objectives: Recovery is an emerging movement in mental health. Evidence for recovery-based approaches is not well developed and approaches to implement recovery-oriented services are not well articulated. The collaborative recovery model (CRM) is presented as a model that assists clinicians to use evidence-based skills with consumers, in a manner consistent with the recovery movement. A current 5 year multisite Australian study to evaluate the effectiveness of CRM is briefly described. Conclusion: The collaborative recovery model puts into practice several aspects of policy regarding recovery-oriented services, using evidence-based practices to assist individuals who have chronic or recurring mental disorders (CRMD). It is argued that this model provides an integrative framework combining (i) evidence-based practice; (ii) manageable and modularized competencies relevant to case management and psychosocial rehabilitation contexts; and (iii) recognition of the subjective experiences of consumers.