Psychiatrists' and Internists' Knowledge and Attitudes About Delivery of Clinical Preventive Medical Services
ABSTRACT Changes in the health care environment have placed a greater responsibility on psychiatrists to deliver basic primary care services. The study assessed baseline knowledge and attitudes about clinical preventive medical services among psychiatric faculty and psychiatric residents at a tertiary care medical center.
Residents and faculty in psychiatry and general internal medicine completed a structured questionnaire, including 20 case scenarios, that assessed their baseline knowledge of clinical preventive medical services, their attitudes concerning delivery of those services, and their beliefs about the effectiveness of those services in changing patients' behavior. The case scenarios and knowledge questions were based on the clinical preventive medical services recommendations outlined by the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Psychiatrists reported more frequent assessment of and counseling about the use of illicit drugs and weapons, and internists were more likely to query about measures related to physical health such as cancer screening and immunizations. The two groups reported similar attitudes toward the need for and the efficacy of preventive medical services. Commonly cited barriers to the delivery of preventive care included lack of time and education. Psychiatrists scored reasonably well on baseline knowledge about guidelines for preventive medical services, particularly given their recent lack of specific education in these matters.
Psychiatrists believe clinical preventive services are important and express interest in their delivery. Additional educational interventions are needed to train psychiatrists in clinical preventive services to avoid missed clinical opportunities for intervention in psychiatric populations that may have poor access to other medical care.
- SourceAvailable from: Donna LM Kurtz
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "Some studies suggest that mental health case managers and nurses are not sufficiently educated in physical assessment. They contend that these individuals lack the comprehensive assessment focus in their practice or are not employing the assessment skills necessary to highlight physical health conditions apart from a previous or current mental health diagnosis that may or may not be the presenting issue (Carney et al. 1998; Farmer 1987; Lambert et al. 2003; McDevitt 2004). While these suggestions may in part reflect the reasons why women with a mental health diagnosis are more likely to have poor physical health, other activities, such as those that constitute institutional taken-for-granted practices, contribute to inadequate or poor physical assessment and treatment. "
ABSTRACT: Using a feminist qualitative approach, this study substantiated many earlier research findings that document how women with a mental health diagnosis experience unequal access to comprehensive health care compared to the general population. Accounts of this disparity are documented in the literature, yet the literature has failed to record or attend to the voices of those living with mental health challenges. In this paper, women living with a mental health diagnosis describe their experiences as they interface with the health-care system. The participating women's stories clearly relate the organizational and interpersonal challenges commonly faced when they seek health-care services. The stories include experiences of marginalized identity, powerlessness, and silencing of voiced health concerns. The women tell of encountered gaps in access to health care and incomplete health assessment, screening, and treatment. It becomes clear that personal and societal stigmatization related to the mental health diagnosis plays a significant role in these isolating and unsatisfactory experiences. Lastly, the women offer beginning ideas for change by suggesting starting points to eliminate the institutional and interpersonal obstacles or barriers to their wellness. The concerns raised demand attention, reconsideration, and change by those in the health-care system responsible for policy and practice.International journal of mental health nursing 07/2009; 18(3):153-63. DOI:10.1111/j.1447-0349.2009.00599.x · 2.01 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Individuals with serious mental illness (SMI) are likely highly vulnerable to food insecurity, yet this issue remains unexplored within this population. METHODS: A mixed method approach to assess the prevalence and underlying factors was conducted. Food security status was assessed within a convenience sample of 72 community-dwelling individuals with SMI. Semi-structured interviews (n=28) and focus groups (n=4) were subsequently conducted. RESULTS: Within the sample, 45.8% were classified as food insecure, with 29.2% identified as very low food secure. While classic food insecurity barriers (e.g. lack of transportation, fixed income, inadequate resources, etc) were identified, these factors were further compounded by symptoms associated with mental illness. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to national data, this SMI sample was nearly 8 times more likely to report food insecurity. Information discovered during interviews and focus groups will enable researchers to tailor a food security intervention uniquely suited to address the challenges presented within this population.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients with psychiatric illnesses may be at higher risk for the development of certain medical problems. Those with more severe psychiatric illnesses may encounter barriers to promoting good health and to obtaining good health care when comorbid illnesses do occur. This paper reviews some of the recent literature on health care practices and health system access for the mentally ill; HIV care and its relationship to mental disorders; drug interactions between general medical drugs and psychotropics; and certain medical conditions that appear to co-occur more frequently with psychiatric disorders.Current Psychiatry Reports 07/2000; 2(3):256-63. DOI:10.1007/s11920-996-0019-x · 3.05 Impact Factor