Article

Clinical differences among patients treated for mental health problems in general medical and specialty mental health settings in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
General Hospital Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 2.9). 09/2006; 28(5):387-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2006.05.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT General medical (GM) treatments for mental health disorders are less likely than specialty mental health (SMH) treatments to be adequate. We explored whether differences in the clinical characteristics of patients treated in each sector (GM-only or SMH-only) or in both sectors (GM+SMH) may help to explain this finding.
We analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), a nationally representative household survey of 5692 English-speaking adult household residents that was carried out in 2001-2003. The NCS-R used a fully structured diagnostic interview to assess DSM-IV disorders, including mood, anxiety, impulse control and substance use disorders. We classified disorders in terms of a three-category severity gradient (serious, moderate and mild) based on information about clinically significant distress and role impairment. We collected self-report data on chronic physical conditions, sociodemographics and type of treatment received for emotional and substance use problems in the 12 months before the interview.
Patients who received GM+SMH treatment had more severe mental disorders and a higher prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders than patients who received treatment in only one of the two sectors. Patients seen in the GM-only and GM+SMH sectors had more chronic physical conditions than patients seen in the SMH-only sector.
Patient characteristics may partially explain the lower intensity and adequacy of GM treatment.

0 Followers
 · 
46 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This chapter presents how best to navigate the systematized body of knowledge that constitutes women’s mental health services. The authors integrate the disparate disciplines involved in women’s mental health into a working framework focused on information-seeking behaviors.
    A public health perspective of women's mental health, Edited by Marion A. Becker, Bruce Lubotsky Levin, 01/2010: chapter Navigating the worlds of information: pages 373-390; Springer., ISBN: 978-1-4419-1525-2
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study has a dual purpose: 1) identify determinants of healthcare service utilization for mental health reasons (MHR) in a Canadian (Montreal) catchment area; 2) determine the patterns of recourse to healthcare professionals in terms of frequency of visits and type of professionals consulted, and as it relates to the most prevalent mental disorders (MD) and psychological distress. Data was collected from a random sample of 1,823 individuals interviewed after a two-year follow-up period. A regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with service utilization and complementary analyses were carried out to better understand participants' patterns of healthcare service utilization in relation to the most prevalent MD. Among 243 individuals diagnosed with a MD in the 12 months preceding an interview, 113 (46.5%) reported having used healthcare services for MHR. Determinants of service utilization were emotional and legal problems, number of MD, higher personal income, lower quality of life, inability of individuals to influence events occurring in their neighborhood, female gender and, marginally, lack of alcohol dependence in the past 12 months. Emotional problems were the most significant determinant of healthcare service utilization. Frequent visits with healthcare professionals were more likely associated with major depression and number of MD with or without dependence to alcohol or drugs. People suffering from major depression, psychological distress and social phobia were more likely to consult different professionals, while individuals with panic disorders relied on their family physician only. Concerning social phobia, panic disorders and psychological distress, more frequent visits with professionals did not translate into involvement of a higher number of professionals or vice-versa. This study demonstrates the impact of emotional problems, neighborhood characteristics and legal problems in healthcare service utilization for MHR. Interventions based on inter-professional collaboration could be prioritized to increase the ability of healthcare services to take care especially of individuals suffering from social phobia, panic disorders and psychological distress. Others actions that could be prioritized are training of family physicians in the treatment of MD, use of psychiatric consultants, internet outreach, and reimbursement of psychological consultations for individuals with low income.
    BMC Health Services Research 04/2014; 14(1):161. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-161 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To study help-seeking among the general population and people with major depression. 12-month help-seeking for emotional problems was assessed in a cross-sectional 2006 Estonian Health Survey. Non-institutionalized individuals aged 18–84 years (n = 6,105) were interviewed. A major depressive episode was assessed using the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. The factors associated with help-seeking, received help, and health service use were analyzed. The prevalence of 12-month help-seeking for emotional symptoms was 4.8%. The rate of 12-month help-seeking in the depressed sample was 34.1%. Depressed people used non-mental health services 1.5–3 times more than non-depressed persons even when adjusted for the chronic somatic disorder. Only one third of depressed persons sought help, which was most of all associated with severity of depression. Underdiagnosis and undertreatment of depression leads to an increased use of expensive but non-specific health services by depressed persons.
    Community Mental Health Journal 08/2012; 49(4). DOI:10.1007/s10597-012-9499-9 · 1.03 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from