Attitudes of Primary Care Health Workers Towards Mental Health Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Osun State, Nigeria

Novel Insights into Autism Knowledge and Stigmatizing Attitudes Toward Mental Illness in Dutch Youth and Family Center Physicians

Professionals' limited knowledge on mental health and their stigmatizing attitudes toward mental illness can delay the diagnosis of autism. We evaluated the knowledge on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and stigmatizing attitudes in 93 physicians at Dutch Youth and Family Centers (YFC). These physicians screen for psychiatric symptoms in children. We show that their general ASD knowledge scored 7.1 (SD 1.2), but their specific ASD knowledge was only 5.7 (SD 1.7) (weighted means on 1-10 scale, 1 = least knowledge, 10 = most knowledge). Our physicians had positive attitudes toward mental illness (CAMI scores 2.18 (SD 0.33) to 2.22 (SD 0.40) on a 5-point Likert scale) but they had higher levels of stigmatizing attitudes than other Western healthcare professionals. Their levels were considerably lower than in non-Western professionals. We found no relations between ASD knowledge, stigmatizing attitudes and demographic variables. In conclusion, ASD knowledge and stigmatizing attitudes toward mental illness in Dutch YFC physicians require attention.

Changes in Attitudes toward Mental Illness in Healthcare Professionals and Students

Mental-illness-related stigma not only exists in the public but also in healthcare systems. Healthcare providers (HCPs) who have stigmatizing attitudes or behaviors might be thought of as a key barrier to mental health service use, and influence the quality of healthcare. Although cumulative projects have been conducted to reduce stigma related to mental illness among HCPs around the world, little is known about whether the attitudes of HCPs toward mental illness have changed over time. Research on this topic is mixed with respect to whether attitudes of HCPs toward mental illness have become more or less positive. The aim of the current study was to help clarify this issue using a cross-temporal meta-analysis of scores on the Social Distance Scale (SDS), Opinions about Mental Illness (OMI), and Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness (CAMI) measures among health care professionals and students (N = 15,653) from 1966 to 2016. Our results indicated that both social distance (β = -0.32, p < 0.001) and attitudes (β = 0.43, p = 0.007) of HCPs toward mental illness have become increasingly positive over time. These findings provide empirical evidence to support that the anti-stigma programs and courses have positive effects on HCPs and can inform future anti-stigma programs focusing on improving the attitudes of HCPs toward mental illness, thereby improving the quality of healthcare provided.

Perceptions about mental illness among general practitioners

Background

General practitioners (GPs) play an important role in the physical care of patients with severe mental illness, so our aim was to analyse the relationships between GPs' sociodemographic status and worked-related variables and their perceptions about mental illness.

Methods

A descriptive, cross-sectional study was conducted in the Clinical Management Unit of Mental Health (CMU-MH) of the Regional Hospital of Malaga (Spain). The eligible population comprised all GPs working in the 13 primary care centres (PCCs) in the hospital's catchment area during the study period. GPs were interviewed to collect data on their attitudes to and knowledge of mental illness, psychiatry and the local mental health team, as well as their sociodemographic status, professional qualifications and experience. Bivariate analysis was carried out.

Results

145 GPs answered the questionnaire (77%). ANOVA revealed that most of the PCCs with the best relationship with their mental health team and best attitude to mental illness were in the Central Community Mental Health Unit, which operated a collaborative model of care.

Conclusions

These results indicated that GPs who worked more closely with their specialist mental health team had a better perception of their relationship with the mental health centre and less stigmatisation in regard to mental illness.

Barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into primary health care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The objective of the review was to synthesize evidence of barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into PHC from existing literature. The structure of the review was guided by the SPIDER framework which involves the following: Sample or population of interest-primary care providers (PCPs); Phenomenon of Interest-integration of mental health services into primary health care (PHC); Design-influenced robustness and analysis of the study; Evaluation-outcomes included subjective outcomes (views and attitudes); and Research type-qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies.

METHODS

Studies that described mental health integration in PHC settings, involved primary care providers, and presented barriers/facilitators of mental health integration into PHC were included in the review. The sources of information included PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, the WHO website, and OpenGrey. Assessment of bias and quality was done using two separate tools: the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) qualitative checklist and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies.

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria out of the 3353 search results. The most frequently reported barriers to integration of mental health services into PHC were (i) attitudes regarding program acceptability, appropriateness, and credibility; (ii) knowledge and skills; (iii) motivation to change; (iv) management and/or leadership; and (v) financial resources. In order to come up with an actionable approach to addressing the barriers, these factors were further analyzed along a behavior change theory.

DISCUSSION

We have shown that the integration of mental health services into PHC has been carried out by various countries. The analysis from this review provides evidence to inform policy on the existing barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the mental health integration policy option. Not all databases may have been exhausted.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2016 (Registration Number: CRD42016052000 ) and published in BMC Systematic Reviews August 2017.

Barriers and facilitators to the integration of mental health services into primary healthcare: a qualitative study among Ugandan primary care providers using the COM-B framework

Background

Uptake of clinical guideline recommendations into routine practice requires changes in attitudes and behaviors of the health care providers. The World Health Organization (WHO) has heavily invested in public health and health promotion globally by developing policy recommendations to guide clinical practice; however, clinical guidelines are often not applied. The success of the implementation of any guidelines depends on consideration of existing barriers and adequately addressing them. Therefore, exploring the context specific barriers and facilitators affecting the primary care providers (PCPs) in Mbarara district, Uganda may provide a practical way of addressing the identified barriers thus influence the PCPs action towards integration of mental healthcare services into PHC.

Methods

We adopted a theoretical model of behavior change; Capability, Opportunity and Motivation developed to understand behavior (COM-B). This was a cross-sectional study which involved using a semi-structured qualitative interview guide to conduct in-depth interviews with PCP’s (clinical officers, nurses and midwives).

Results

Capability - inadequacy in knowledge about mental disorders; more comfortable managing patients with a mental problem diagnosis than making a new one; knowledge about mental health was gained during pre-service training; no senior cadre to consultations in mental health; and burdensome to consult the Uganda Clinical Guidelines (UCG). Opportunity - limited supply of hard copies of the UCG; guidelines not practical for local setting; did not regularly deal with clients having mental illness to foster routine usage of the UCG; no sensitization about the UCG to the intended users; and no cues at the health centers to remind the PCPs to use UCG. Motivation - did not feel self-reliant; not seen the UCG at their health facilities; lack of trained mental health specialists; conflicting priorities; and no regulatory measures to encourage screening for mental health.

Conclusions

Efforts to achieve successful integration of mental health services into PHC need to fit in the context of the implementers; thus the need to adapt the UCG into local context, have cues to enforce implementation, and optimize the available expertize (mental healthcare providers) in the process.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3684-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.