Is the Concept of Solastalgia Meaningful to Pacific Communities Experiencing Mental Health Distress Due to Climate Change? An Initial Exploration

The critical inquiry is how Pacific communities themselves characterize mental distress as a result of climate change. If not solastalgia, what more suitable terms might they use? This viewpoint article aims to initiate a discourse using solastalgia as the focus for the Pacific by 1. providing a definition of solastalgia; 2. examining its application in Pacific research; 3. presenting limitations of solastalgia; and 4. assessing its appropriateness for Pacific communities. There is a dearth of research using solastalgia, particularly within Pacific communities. The Pacific region's diverse contexts may already possess terms that effectively convey place-based distress that solastalgia attempts to describe. However, the authors found that solastalgia holds limited utility in the Pacific region, primarily based on a review of the literature, which involved keyword searches in Google Scholar such as solastalgia, mental health, mental distress, wellbeing, climate change, environmental distress, displacement, and Indigenous and Pacific peoples. More importantly, the concept is limited in capturing Pacific experiences of land loss due to climate change events, particularly, as the Pacific imbues land with profound significance, intertwined with culture, identity, and wellbeing. Land loss equates to a loss of culture, identity, wellbeing, and kinship in most Pacific contexts. It is apparent that broader and more holistic approaches are required.

Mental Health Status of the General Public, Frontline, and Non-frontline Healthcare Providers in the Early Stage of COVID-19

Background: The outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in 2020 which resulted in high levels of psychological stress in both the general public and healthcare providers. Purpose: The study aimed to address the mental health status of people in China in the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak, and to identify differences among the general public, frontline, and non-frontline healthcare providers. Method: A cross-sectional study was used to identify the mental health status of the general public and healthcare providers between Jan 29 and Feb 11, 2020. Data were collected using an online survey from a convenience sample. The instruments used included: Patient Health Questionnaire, Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, Insomnia Severity Index, and Impact of Event Scale-Revised. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the data. Kruskal-Wallis H tests were performed to assess differences in measurements among the three groups; P < 0.05 (two-sided) was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Results showed that a majority of participants experienced post-traumatic stress (68.8%), depression (46.1%), anxiety (39.8%), and insomnia (31.4%). Significant changes in the mental health status of frontline providers was found as compared to those of the other groups (P < 0.001). Interestingly, the scores of the general public were significantly higher than those of the non-frontline healthcare providers (P < 0.001). Conclusion: These findings provide information to evaluate outbreak associated psychological stress for the general public and healthcare providers, and assist in providing professional support and actionable guidance to ease psychological stress and improve mental health.

Strategies and Barriers in Addressing Mental Health and Suicidality in Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

To identify how oncology nurses address mental health distress and suicidality in patients, what strategies they employ in treating this distress, and the barriers they face in addressing distress and suicidality in patients with cancer.

PARTICIPANTS & SETTING

20 oncology nurses at two cancer centers in Israel were interviewed.

METHODOLOGIC APPROACH

The grounded theory method of data collection and analysis was employed.

FINDINGS

Strategies used in addressing patients' mental health distress were being emotionally available, providing practical support, treating physical symptoms, and referring to counseling. Strategies in addressing suicidality were assessing the situation, offering end-of-life or palliative care, treating physical symptoms, and referring for assessment. Barriers to addressing distress were lack of training, stigma, workload or lack of time, and limited availability and accessibility of mental health resources. Barriers in addressing suicidality were lack of knowledge and training, patient reluctance to receive care, and lack of protocol.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Developing guidelines for addressing and responding to mental health distress and suicidality is essential to improving patients' quality of life and reducing disease-related morbidity and mortality. Reducing mental healthcare stigma for patients is critical.

Oncology health care professionals' perspectives on the causes of mental health distress in cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To explore oncologists, social workers, and nurses' perceptions about the causes of their cancer patient's mental health distress.

METHODS

The grounded theory (GT) method of data collection and analysis was used. Sixty-one oncology health care professionals were interviewed about what they perceived to be the causes of mental health distress in their patients. Analysis involved line-by-line coding and was inductive, with codes and categories emerging from participants' narratives.

RESULTS

Oncology health care professionals were sensitive in their perceptions of their patients' distress. The findings were organized into three categories, namely, disease-related factors, social factors, and existential factors. Disease-related themes included side effects of the disease and treatment, loss of bodily functions, and body image concerns as causing patient's mental health distress. Social-related themes included socio-economic stress, loneliness/lack of social support, and family-related distress. Existential themes included dependence/fear of being a burden, death anxiety, and grief and loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology health care professionals were able to name a wide range of causes of mental health distress in their patients. These findings highlight the need to have explicit conversations with patients about their mental status and to explore their understanding of their suffering. A patient-centered approach that values the patient's conceptualization of their problem and their narrative to understanding their illness can improve the patient-provider relationship and facilitate discussions about patient-centered treatments.

Oncologists' Treatment Responses to Mental Health Distress in Their Cancer Patients

The objectives of this study were to identify how oncologists respond to mental health distress in their patients, what specific strategies they use in treating this distress, and what barriers they report responding to their patients' emotional distress. Twenty-three oncologists at two cancer centers were interviewed. The grounded theory method of data collection and analysis was used. Oncologists varied in their response to patients' emotional distress. Strategies used in responding to patients' distress included creating supportive relationships and prescribing medications, while barriers included patient reluctance, a lack of protocol on how to respond to patients, limited psychosocial resources, and a lack of time. Developing and adopting clear guidelines to addressing mental health distress among cancer patients is critical in assuring quality care for the whole patient and reduce the risk for poor quality of life and potential disease-related morbidity and mortality.