Article

Discrepancies between survey and administrative data on the use of mental health services in the general population: findings from a study conducted in Québec

Département de psychiatrie de l'université de Montréal, C,P, 6138 Succ, Centre-Ville, Montréal, H3C 3J7, Canada.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.32). 10/2011; 11(1):837. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-837
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Population surveys and health services registers are the main source of data for the management of public health. Yet, the validity of survey data on the use of mental health services has been questioned repeatedly due to the sensitive nature of mental illness and to the risk of recall bias. The main objectives of this study were to compare data on the use of mental health services from a large scale population survey and a national health services register and to identify the factors associated with the discrepancies observed between these two sources of data.
This study was based on the individual linkage of data from the cycle 1.2 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS-1.2) and from the health services register of the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec (RAMQ). The RAMQ is the governmental agency managing the Quebec national health insurance program. The analyses mostly focused on the 637 Quebecer respondents who were recorded as users of mental health services in the RAMQ and who were self-reported users or non users of these services in the CCHS-1.2.
Roughly 75%, of those recorded as users of mental health services users in the RAMQ's register did not report using mental health services in the CCHS-1.2. The odds of disagreement between survey and administrative data were higher in seniors, individuals with a lower level of education, legal or de facto spouses and mothers of young children. They were lower in individuals with a psychiatric disorder and in frequent and more recent users of mental health services according to the RAMQ's register.
These findings support the hypotheses that social desirability and recall bias are likely to affect the self-reported use of mental health services in a population survey. They stress the need to refine the investigation of mental health services in population surveys and to combine survey and administrative data, whenever possible, to obtain an optimal estimation of the population need for mental health care.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Richard Boyer, Jul 01, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
129 Views
  • Source
    • "But, if those populations had been included, the results probably would have been in the same direction as we have presented. Underreporting of visits to mental health services due to social desirability or recall bias is another potential source of bias (Drapeau et al. 2011; Sevilla-Dedieu et al. 2011 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to analyze individual and contextual inequalities in psychiatrist and psychologist visits in Catalonia. This is a multilevel cross-sectional study using data from the 2006 Catalan Health Interview Survey (n = 15,554). 5.3 % of men and 9.0 % of women visited a psychologist and/or psychiatrist in the last 12 months. People aged 65 years or over were less likely to have visited these professionals and those with a supplemental private health insurance had a higher proportion of having visited. Moreover, people living in lower density regions were less likely to have visited, independently of their level of need. There is a need to develop policies for reducing inequalities in access by people with public health insurance and living in lower density areas.
    Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 06/2012; DOI:10.1007/s10488-012-0426-8 · 3.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of mental illness and psychological suffering is greater than the availability of primary care services in Europe and, in particular, in Italy. The main barriers that hinder the access to these services are economic, the lack of proximity of services and some prejudices that may promote stigma and shame.A new mental health service, named "Psychologist in the Neighbourhood" was created to intercept unexpressed needs for psychological assistance. The service allows everyone to ask for free psychological consultation, consisting of no more than four meetings with a psychologist, in certain chemists' shops around the city of Milan. This article aims to present the service specific features of this initiative and the results of a pilot study. Information gathered on all users included socio-demographic data, the reasons why they approached this specific service, how they learnt about it, the main presented problem and, for a random sub-group, the level of psychological well-being (as measured by the PGWBI). Socio-demographic data were compared with previously collected information about general users of psychological services. The outcome of the intervention was assessed by the clinicians. During the two-year project a total of 1,775 people accessed the service. Compared to traditional users of psychological services, the participants in this service were characterized by a higher presence of females, unemployed and retired people. The main factors encouraging access were proximity and the fact that the service was free of charge. Many of the users were redirected to more specific services, while for about a third of the sample the consultation cycle was sufficient to resolve the presented problem. The interest and participation of the population was high and this initiative intercepted an unexpressed requirement for psychological support. Free access and home proximity, were the main reasons for accessing this specific service. Subjects were mostly re-directed to appropriate services, while about a third of the sample addressed and resolved their problem with the psychologist in the chemist's shop.These encouraging results suggest the benefits of bringing psychological consultations closer to citizens, particularly to those who cannot afford it, reducing socio-economic inequalities.
    BMC Public Health 07/2012; 12:501. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-12-501 · 2.32 Impact Factor
Show more