Abstract Background: Children and adolescents in mental healthcare often perceive their care needs and necessary treatment differently from their clinicians. As such discordance between young patients and clinicians may obstruct treatment adherence and compromise treatment outcomes, it is important to understand the factors associated with it. We therefore investigated the factors associated with patient–clinician discordance with regard to care needs in various areas of functioning. Methods: A cross-sectional study involving 244 children/adolescents aged 6–18 participating with their clinicians in treatment at a specialized mental healthcare center. As a previous study conducted by our research group had found the greatest patient–clinician discordance in three CANSAS care needs—“mental health problems,” “information regarding diagnosis and/or treatment,” and “making and/or keeping friends”—we used univariable and multivariable statistics to investigate the factors associated with discordance regarding these three care needs. Results: patient–clinician discordance on the three CANSAS items was associated with child, parent, and family/social-context factors. Three variables were significant in each of the three final multivariable models: dangerous behavior towards self (child level); severity of psychiatric problems of the parent (parent level); and growing up in a single-parent household (family/social-context level). Conclusions: To deliver treatment most effectively and to prevent drop-out, it is important during diagnostic assessment and treatment planning to address the patient’s care needs at all three levels: child, parent and family/social context.
IntroductionSeclusion still occurs on mental health wards, despite absence of therapeutic efficacy and high risks of adverse patient effects. Literature on the effect of nursing teams, and the role of psychological characteristics in particular, on frequency of seclusion is scarce.AimTo explore the influence of demographic, professional or psychological, nursing team-level, and shift characteristics on the frequency of use of seclusion.MethodsProspective two-year follow-up study.ResultsWe found that the probability of seclusion was lower when nursing teams with at least 75% males were on duty, compared to female only teams, odds ratio (OR = 0.283; 95% CrI 0.046–0.811). We observed a trend indicating that teams scoring higher on the openness personality dimension secluded less, (OR = 0.636; 95% CrI 0.292–1.156).DiscussionHigher proportions of male nurses in teams on duty were associated with lower likelihood of seclusion. We found an indication that teams with a higher mean openness personality trait tended to seclude less. These findings, if causal, could serve as an incentive to reflect on staff mix if circumstances demand better prevention of seclusion.
MULTIFILE
Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the Boston University Approach to Psychiatric Rehabilitation (BPR) compared to an active control condition (ACC) to increase the social participation (in competitive employment, unpaid work, education, and meaningful daily activities) of individuals with severe mental illnesses (SMIs). ACC can be described as treatment as usual but with an active component, namely the explicit assignment of providing support with rehabilitation goals in the area of social participation. Method: In a randomized clinical trial with 188 individuals with SMIs, BPR (n = 98) was compared to ACC (n=90). Costs were assessed with the Treatment Inventory of Costs in Patients with psychiatric disorders (TIC-P). Outcome measures for the cost-effectiveness analysis were incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) and incremental cost per proportional change in social participation. Budget Impact was investigated using four implementation scenarios and two costing variants. Results: Total costs per participant at 12-month follow-up were e 12,886 in BPR and e 12,012 in ACC, a non-significant difference. There were no differences with regard to social participation or QALYs. Therefore, BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. Types of expenditure with the highest costs were in order of magnitude: supported and sheltered housing, inpatient care, outpatient care, and organized activities. Estimated budget impact of wide BPR implementation ranged from cost savings to e190 million, depending on assumptions regarding uptake. There were no differences between the two costing variants meaning that from a health insurer perspective, there would be no additional costs if BPR was implemented on a wider scale in mental health care institutions. Conclusions: This was the first study to investigate BPR cost-effectiveness and budget impact. The results showed that BPR was not cost-effective compared to ACC. When interpreting the results, one must keep in mind that the cost-effectiveness of BPR was investigated in the area of social participation, while BPR was designed to offer support in all rehabilitation areas. Therefore, more studies are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the method as a whole.
