Search

Substance use and mental ill health constitute a major public health burden, and a key global policy priority is to reduce illicit and other harmful substance use. Amphetamine-type stimulants (ATS) are the second most used class of illicit drugs and a range of mental health issues have been documented amongst users. This paper explores the relationship between mental health and ATS use, through a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with n = 18 current and former ATS users in England. The findings are presented by trajectory point of; (1) Initiation of ATS use; (2) continued and increased ATS use and (3) decreased and remitted ATS use. This work helps to develop understanding around the complex and bi-directional relationship between ATS use and mental health. Many ATS users lead chaotic lives and engage in multiple risk behaviours, however there is a need to better understand and conceptualise the dynamic interaction between different individual, social, environment and cultural factors that determine individuals' mental health and substance use. There is no 'one size fits all' approach to prevention and treatment, and these findings highlight the need for more joined-up, tailored and holistic approaches to intervention development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare professionals have development needs related to their consumption, use, and practice of clinical research. Little is known about these issues in mental health services specifically. Objectives: A survey of healthcare staff working in an NHS Mental Health and Disability Trust in England was conducted to describe research capacity and culture compared with previously reported samples, and to examine subgroup differences. Methods: An online questionnaire was utilized. The main measure was the Research Capacity and Culture tool comprising measures of individual's perceived research skills and of team and organizational research culture. Previous studies using the same measure were systematically identified, and pooled results, weighted by sample size, were calculated. Analyses were descriptive (current sample versus previous results) and inferential (comparisons between demographic and professional groups within the current sample). Results: N = 293 people completed the survey. The median item scores were poorer than those of pooled samples from studies reporting median item scores on 39/51 (76.5%) occasions and poorer than those pooled samples of studies reporting mean item scores on 51/51 (100.0%) occasions. Individual capability for research was in the 'less than adequate' range more than in previous samples (71.4% vs. 42.9%). For team culture items, the proportions were 84.2% vs. 78.9%, while most responses about organizational culture were in the 'adequate' range (55.6% vs. 66.7%). Staff >20 years employment had poorer perceptions of team and organizational culture. Conclusion: Perceptions of individual research capacity and team and organizational culture were poor compared with previous studies, most of which were conducted in non-mental health settings. There is need for development of research capacity and culture in mental health services including opportunities to develop basic research skills through to strategic developments to promote clinical academic careers. There is considerable room for improvement in the way organizations support research and signpost opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]