Search

Background: Many people with a mental illness are parents caring for dependent children. These children are at greater risk of developing their own mental health concerns compared to other children. Mental health services are opportune places for healthcare professionals to identify clients' parenting status and address the needs of their children. There is a knowledge gap regarding Thai mental health professionals' family-focused knowledge and practices when working with parents with mental illness and their children and families.Methods: This cross -sectional survey study examined the attitudes, knowledge and practices of a sample (n = 349) of the Thai mental health professional workforce (nurses, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists) using a translated version of the Family-Focused Mental Health Practice Questionnaire (FFMHPQ).Results: The majority of clinicians reported no training in family (76.8%) or child-focused practice (79.7%). Compared to other professional groups, psychiatric nurses reported lower scores on almost all aspects of family-focused practice except supporting clients in their parenting role within the context of their mental illness. Social workers scored highest overall including having more workplace support for family-focused practice as well as a higher awareness of family-focused policy and procedures than psychiatrists; social workers also scored higher than psychologists on providing support to families and parents. All mental health care professional groups reported a need for training and inter-professional practice when working with families.Conclusions: The findings indicate an important opportunity for the prevention of intergenerational mental illness in whose parents have mental illness by strengthening the professional development of nurses and other health professionals in child and family-focused knowledge and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current pandemic of COVID-19 impacted the psychological wellbeing of populations globally.Objectives: We aimed to examine the extent and identify factors associated with psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study across 17 countries during Jun-2020 to Jan-2021. Levels of psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale), fear of COVID-19 (Fear of COVID-19 Scale), and coping (Brief Resilient Coping Scale) were assessed.Results: A total of 8,559 people participated; mean age (±SD) was 33(±13) years, 64% were females and 40% self-identified as frontline workers. More than two-thirds (69%) experienced moderate-to-very high levels of psychological distress, which was 46% in Thailand and 91% in Egypt. A quarter (24%) had high levels of fear of COVID-19, which was as low as 9% in Libya and as high as 38% in Bangladesh. More than half (57%) exhibited medium to high resilient coping; the lowest prevalence (3%) was reported in Australia and the highest (72%) in Syria. Being female (AOR 1.31 [95% CIs 1.09-1.57]), perceived distress due to change of employment status (1.56 [1.29-1.90]), comorbidity with mental health conditions (3.02 [1.20-7.60]) were associated with higher levels of psychological distress and fear. Doctors had higher psychological distress (1.43 [1.04-1.97]), but low levels of fear of COVID-19 (0.55 [0.41-0.76]); nurses had medium to high resilient coping (1.30 [1.03-1.65]).Conclusions: The extent of psychological distress, fear of COVID-19 and coping varied by country; however, we identified few higher risk groups who were more vulnerable than others. There is an urgent need to prioritise health and well-being of those people through well-designed intervention that may need to be tailored to meet country specific requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited understanding of the symptoms that older people living with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease experience during the last year of life in Thailand, in addition to their health service preferences. Aims: To survey the symptom experiences and health service preferences at the end of life of older people with chronic illnesses from the perspective of bereaved carers. Methods: The study used a retrospective post-bereavement approach to collect quantitative data. Purposive sampling was used to select 76 bereaved relatives of older people living with chronic illnesses who had died in the previous 5 to10 months. Telephone interviews and a translated version of the Views of Informal Carers—Evaluation Services (VOICES) questionnaire were conducted. Data were analysed using the statistical package SPSS version 17. Findings: The overall quality of care received by older people living with chronic diseases during the last three months of life was described as 'good' (36%). However, in comparing the quality of care from different settings, most of the subjects (63%) thought that the quality of care at home should be rated as 'poor'. During the last twelve months, 35% of the respondents rated pain and poor appetite as the main symptoms, while 25% described experiencing 'worry' related to being at the end of life. The severity of many symptoms increased during the last three months of life; 21% of carers recommended that pain caused the most suffering to their relatives at 'all times', when compared with other symptoms of end of life. Around 21–35% reported that their relatives 'sometimes' experienced worry, low mood, breathlessness and oedema. During the last three days of life, it was reported by 97% of respondents that their relatives spent all of their time in hospital, and no respondents reported that their relatives had died at home. Conclusion: The study indicates that older people living with chronic diseases in Thailand are less likely to access specialist palliative care and are more likely to have poor symptom control at the end of life. It indicates that health services may not be meeting patients' needs and that there was clearly insufficient healthcare provision at home for older people to help them to manage their symptoms such as pain and breathlessness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: With the increase in the number of systematic reviews available, a logical next step to provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they require has been the conduct of reviews of existing systematic reviews. Syntheses of existing systematic reviews are referred to by many different names, one of which is an umbrella review. An umbrella review allows the findings of reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted. An umbrella review's most characteristic feature is that this type of evidence synthesis only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A methodology working group was formed by the Joanna Briggs Institute to develop methodological guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review, including diverse types of evidence, both quantitative and qualitative. The aim of this study is to describe the development and guidance for the conduct of an umbrella review. Methods: Discussion and testing of the elements of methods for the conduct of an umbrella review were held over a 6-month period by members of a methodology working group. The working group comprised six participants who corresponded via teleconference, e-mail and face-to-face meeting during this development period. In October 2013, the methodology was presented in a workshop at the Joanna Briggs Institute Convention. Workshop participants, review authors and methodologists provided further testing, critique and feedback on the proposed methodology. Results: This study describes the methodology and methods developed for the conduct of an umbrella review that includes published systematic reviews and meta-analyses as the analytical unit of the review. Details are provided regarding the essential elements of an umbrella review, including presentation of the review question in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome format, nuances of the inclusion criteria and search strategy. A critical appraisal tool with 10 questions to help assess risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was also developed and tested. Relevant details to extract from included reviews and how to best present the findings of both quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews in a reader friendly format are provided. Conclusions: Umbrella reviews provide a ready means for decision makers in healthcare to gain a clear understanding of a broad topic area. The umbrella review methodology described here is the first to consider reviews that report other than quantitative evidence derived from randomized controlled trials. The methodology includes an easy to use and informative summary of evidence table to readily provide decision makers with the available, highest level of evidence relevant to the question posed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]