Community Mental Health Research Research Articles

The Role of Black Churches in Promoting Mental Health for Communities of Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Black Americans.

Churches in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods serve as safe havens in many Black communities. Churches provide faith and charitable services but often have limited resources to address the mental health needs of their communities. This article reports on a collaborative effort, driven by members of a Black church, to understand mental health needs, coping strategies, and resilience factors in a community of socioeconomically disadvantaged Black Americans. A community-based participatory research effort was established among a church, a community mental health organization, clinicians, and researchers to interview and survey individuals residing near the church. The sample consisted of 59 adults, most of whom were ages 46-65 years, men (N=34, 58%), and unemployed (N=46, 78%). Mean scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (9.2±7.7) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (9.4±6.7) were almost three times higher than those reported by studies of other Black populations in the United States. Five themes emerged: prolonged poverty and daily exposure to violence trigger emotional distress, mental health stigma affects help seeking, spirituality promotes mental relief and personal recovery, spirituality helps in coping with poverty and unsafe neighborhoods, and church-based programs are needed. Uptake of traditional mental health services was low, and reliance on faith and resource distribution by the church was high. Church-led interventions are needed to promote mental health at the individual and community levels. Mental health stigma, and negative attitudes toward mental health promotion in the community, may be addressed by integrating traditional mental health services in church-based recreational and leisure activities.

Inverting the deficit model in global mental health: An examination of strengths and assets of community mental health care in Ghana, India, Occupied Palestinian territories, and South Africa.

Global mental health [GMH] scholarship and practice has typically focused on the unmet needs and barriers to mental health in communities, developing biomedical and psychosocial interventions for integration into formal health care platforms in response. In this article, we analyse four diverse settings to disrupt the emphasises on health system weaknesses, treatment gaps and barriers which can perpetuate harmful hierarchies and colonial and medical assumptions, or a 'deficit model'. We draw on the experiential knowledge of community mental health practitioners and researchers working in Ghana, India, the Occupied Palestinian Territory and South Africa to describe key assets existing in 'informal' community mental health care systems and how these are shaped by socio-political contexts. These qualitative case studies emerged from an online mutual learning process convened between 39 academic and community-based collaborators working in 24 countries who interrogated key tenets to inform a social paradigm for global mental health. Bringing together diverse expertise gained from professional practice and research, our sub-group explored the role of Community Mental Health Systems in GMH through comparative country case studies describing the features of community care beyond the health and social care system. We found that the socio-political health determinants of global economic structures in all four countries exert significant influence on local community health systems. We identified that key assets across sites included: family and community care, and support from non-profit organisations and religious and faith-based organisations. Strengthening community assets may promote reciprocal relationships between the formal and informal sectors, providing resources for support and training for communities while communities collaborate in the design and delivery of interventions rooted in localised expertise. This paper highlights the value of informal care, the unique social structures of each local context, and resources within local communities as key existing assets for mental health.

Can Treating Oneself Kindly Inspire Trust? The Role of Interpersonal Responsibility

Self-compassion, as a personal psychological resource, has been proved to play an important role in coping with suffering. Based on self-determination theory, the present study attempts to establish that self-compassion can promote trust, and the sense of interpersonal responsibility mediates this relationship. Study 1 used cross-sectional data in a community sample of 322 adults to reveal that self-compassion was positively related to trust, and the mediating effects of the sense of interpersonal responsibility were significant. Study 2 used the latent cross-lagged panel model among 1304 college students at three-time points set at six-month intervals to replicate the results and proved the longitudinal mediating effects across groups. Finally, a casual chain design was used to test the mediation effect in Studies 3 and 4. The results indicated that self-compassion induced by writing task resulted in a sense of responsibility in Study 3 (N = 145), and the manipulated sense of responsibility promoted both trust behaviors and beliefs in Study 4 (N = 125). Through four studies, this study highlights a novel but unexpected viewpoint that treating oneself in a self-compassionate way can not only help individuals cope with various challenges but also motivate them to obtain interpersonal benefits. These findings can help motivate community workers and mental health researchers to increase social capital by focusing on self-compassion and interpersonal responsibility.

Views on sharing mental health data for research purposes: qualitative analysis of interviews with people with mental illness

BackgroundImproving the ways in which routinely-collected mental health data are shared could facilitate substantial advances in research and treatment. However, this process should only be undertaken in partnership with those who provide such data. Despite relatively widespread investigation of public perspectives on health data sharing more generally, there is a lack of research on the views of people with mental illness.MethodsTwelve people with lived experience of mental illness took part in semi-structured interviews via online video software. Participants had experience of a broad range of mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, eating disorders and addiction. Interview questions sought to establish how participants felt about the use of routinely-collected health data for research purposes, covering different types of health data, what health data should be used for, and any concerns around its use.ResultsThematic analysis identified four overarching themes: benefits of sharing mental health data, concerns about sharing mental health data, safeguards, and data types. Participants were clear that health data sharing should facilitate improved scientific knowledge and better treatments for mental illness. There were concerns that data misuse could become another way in which individuals and society discriminate against people with mental illness, for example through insurance premiums or employment decisions. Despite this there was a generally positive attitude to sharing mental health data as long as appropriate safeguards were in place.ConclusionsThere was notable strength of feeling across participants that more should be done to reduce the suffering caused by mental illness, and that this could be partly facilitated by well-managed sharing of health data. The mental health research community could build on this generally positive attitude to mental health data sharing by following rigorous best practice tailored to the specific concerns of people with mental illness.

Reframing Mental Health Ethics.

Mental health ethics has been classically focused on ethical concepts and problems in clinical mental health spaces. Psychiatric and psychotherapeutic ethics are main threads of analysis in this subfield of bioethics. However, ethical issues emerge around mental health and illness both within and beyond clinical settings. In particular, ethical quandaries arise in employment, education, family caregiving, and incarceration of people with mental health conditions outside of the clinical setting. Likewise, ethics are an important consideration within alternative care systems where mentally ill people seek support beyond biomedicine, psychotherapy, and case management. In this article, we argue that our understanding of "mental health ethics" should expand to be more inclusive of value questions and conflicts that arise in all areas of the lives of people with mental health conditions, rather than focusing more narrowly on how clinical practitioners and researchers should best respond to ethical quandaries in the delivery of mental healthcare. Community mental health is an ideal space in which to think about such ethical issues, as scholars and practitioners in the field strive to meet not only medical needs but the broader social needs of people with mental health conditions. We begin by providing an overview of psychiatric and psychotherapeutic ethics, and then describe broader applications of ethics in the lives of people experiencing mental illness. We encourage community mental health practitioners and researchers to reconceptualize disciplinary boundaries to consider the vast scope of ethical issues related to mental health in and out of the clinic.

Power Redistribution and Upending White Supremacy in Implementation Research and Practice in Community Mental Health.

This Open Forum explores how implementation research and practice may sustain White supremacist ideas, perpetuate unequal power dynamics, and maintain mental health care inequities. The following questions were considered: What information is valued and considered evidence? and How do power differentials within implementation research and practice manifest? The implementation of evidence-based interventions within community mental health clinics is used as an example to explore these questions. Recommendations are provided to envision a future that centers collaboratively developed and community-led approaches to foster equity in mental health care.

What outcomes in community mental health research are important to caregivers of people with schizophrenia? An exploratory qualitative analysis of an online survey.

This study investigated outcomes in community mental health research that were important to caregivers of people with schizophrenia. Using an online survey conducted from August 1 to 31, 2020, data were collected from caregivers belonging to the LINE Schizophrenia Family Association. Caregivers identified outcomes important in community mental health research. Two researchers categorized caregivers' statements into research outcomes. A total of 132 caregivers completed the online selfreported questionnaire, and 296 caregiver statements were identified. Qualitative analysis identified 17 outcome categories. The caregivers tended to value having more free time, maintaining an appropriate relationship with people with schizophrenia, and being able to cope with their symptoms. This exploratory study newly demonstrates the outcomes that caregivers of people with schizophrenia consider important in community mental health research. The findings may be useful in selecting outcomes for future studies of caregivers.

Multiple stakeholders' perspectives on patient and public involvement in community mental health services research: A qualitative analysis.

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) has become essential in health research. However, little is known about multiple stakeholders' perspectives on the implementation of PPI in community mental health research settings. The present study aimed to qualitatively analyse multiple stakeholders' views on PPI, including potential concerns, barriers and approaches.MethodsThis study involved conducting focus group interviews and collecting qualitative data from 37 participants in multiple stakeholder groups (patients = 6, caregivers = 5, service providers = 7, government staff = 5 and researchers = 14) in the community mental health field. The data were qualitatively analysed using a data‐driven approach that derived domains, themes and subthemes related to perspectives on PPI and to specific challenges and approaches for implementing PPI.ResultsThe qualitative analysis identified four domains. The ‘Positive views and expectations regarding PPI’ domain consisted of themes related to supportive views of PPI in a mental health service research setting and improvements in the quality of research and service. The ‘General concerns about PPI’ domain included themes concerning the need for non‐PPI research and tokenism, excessive expectations concerning social changes and use of evidence from PPI research, and heavy burdens resulting from PPI. The ‘Specific issues regarding the implementation of PPI’ domain consisted of four themes, including academic systems, selection methods (e.g., representativeness and conflict of interest issues), relationship building, and ambiguous PPI criteria. In particular, all stakeholder groups expressed concerns about relational equality during PPI implementation in Japan. The ‘Approaches to PPI implementation’ domain included themes such as facilitating mutual understanding, creating a tolerant atmosphere, establishing PPI support systems (e.g., training, ethics and human resource matching) and empowering patient organizations.ConclusionThe study replicated most of the barriers and approaches to PPI reported by qualitative research in Western counties. However, utilization of evidence produced by PPI research and partnership in the PPI process may be particularly serious issues in Japan. Future PPI studies should carefully address solutions that fit each culture.Patient or Public ContributionA patient‐researcher was involved in all stages of this project, from development of the research topic and the protocol to manuscript preparation.

Community Mental Health Services and Research Clinic (KP2KJM) Muhammadiyah University of East Kalimantan

Mental health disorders will interfere the overall health of a person, so families and communities needs to increase the knowledge of families and community members in determining the condition of mental disorders, as well as how to intervene and implement mental disorder management. There are some services for it, namely the mental health consultation service program, modality therapy, client home visits, health education for the community, and mental health cadres. The results in the change of percentage level of family knowledge after given the actions are as follows: moderate category increases from 35.7% to 46.03%, the good category increases from 23.02% to 33.86%, while the poor category decreases from 41.27% to only 20.11%. It is currently preparing to collaborate with doctors and Healthcare and Social Security Agency (Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial or BPJS) as the first-level health facilities and pharmacy services that are open to the public. Based on the results of research conducted, it shows that the program implemented can increase knowledge of mental health services in the community.

Consensus development of priority outcome domains for community mental health cares by multiple stakeholders: Protocol for an online Delphi study in Japan.

BackgroundTreatment goals for mental illness have expanded from hospital discharge and improved functioning to employment, living alone, and personal realization. These changes in treatment goals have also influenced mental health research. Recent studies have addressed the development of core outcome sets focusing on clinical aspects of mental illness such as depression and anxiety. However, a well‐developed framework of essential outcomes for people with mental illness (service users) who live in the community is lacking. In addition, recent worldwide trends suggest more patient and public involvement and the importance of considering multiple stakeholders’ views in the area of mental health research. Purpose of this study is to explore consensus on high‐priority outcome domains among multiple stakeholders in community mental healthcare fields in Japan.MethodsA three‐step approach to developing an outcome list will be used. First, we developed a long list of outcomes for community mental health through a literature review, focus group interviews with key stakeholders, and online questionnaire surveys of service users and caregivers. Second, the long list was checked and revised in a pilot study. Third, the long list will be shortened to the outcome list through the Delphi methodology with participation from multiple stakeholders.DiscussionIdentifying important common outcome domains through collaboration with multiple stakeholders appears to contribute to the development of evidence for community mental health research in Japan. In addition, the study process itself may help promote patient and public involvement in education, practice, and research in the field of community mental health.

Mitigating the impacts of COVID-19: where are the mental health trials?

Mitigating the impacts of COVID-19: where are the mental health trials?

Looking Back to Move Forward: Reflections on the Strengths and Challenges of the COVID-19 UK Mental Health Research Response.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, the swift response of mental health research funders and institutions, service providers, and academics enabled progress toward understanding the mental health consequences. Nevertheless, there remains an urgent need to understand the true extent of the short- and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health, necessitating ongoing research. Although the speed with which mental health researchers have mobilized to respond to the pandemic so far is to be commended, there are valid concerns as to whether speed may have compromised the quality of our work. As the pandemic continues to evolve, we must take time to reflect on our initial research response and collectively consider how we can use this to strengthen ensuing COVID-19 mental health research and our response to future crises. Here, we offer our reflections as members of the UK mental health research community to discuss the continuing progress and persisting challenges of our COVID-19 response, which we hope can encourage reflection and discussion among the wider research community. We conclude that (1) Fragmentation in our infrastructure has challenged the efficient, effective and equitable deployment of resources, (2) In responding quickly, we may have overlooked the role of experts by experience, (3) Robust and open methods may have been compromised by speedy responses, and (4) This pandemic may exacerbate existing issues of inequality in our workforce.

Researchers expect to solidify findings in study of schizophrenia prevention

Over the past two decades, the mental health research community has made significant strides in identifying the factors that can predict whether an individual is likely to develop schizophrenia. Now there is great hope that a major study being launched across the globe will confirm what is already known and will pave the way for effective strategies to prevent onset of the disorder.

The NIMH global mental health research community and COVID-19

The world faced substantial challenges in meeting the demands for mental health care, even before the emergence of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). With the havoc caused by the pandemic and the impending impact on economies, social structures, and health systems, a global mental health crisis is arising. The Director-General of the UN forecast this situation in a policy brief on May 13, 2020, stating, “The mental health and wellbeing of whole societies have been severely impacted by this crisis and are a priority to be addressed urgently.”1 Three critical actions were recommended: apply a whole-of-society approach to promote, protect, and care for mental health; ensure widespread availability of emergency mental health and psychosocial support; and support recovery from COVID-19 by developing mental health services for the future.

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Setting the Mental Health Research Agenda

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Setting the Mental Health Research Agenda

Exploring the Role of Social Support in Promoting Community Integration: An Integrated Literature Review.

Community integration has emerged as a priority area among mental health advocates, policy makers, and researchers (Townley, Miller, & Kloos, 2013; Ware, Hopper, Tugenberg, Dickey, & Fisher, 2007). Past research suggests that social support influences community integration for individuals with serious mental illnesses (Davidson, Haglund, Stayner, Rakfeldt, Chinman, & Tebes, 2001;Davidson,Stayner,Nickou,Styron,Rowe,&Chinman,2001; Wong & Solomon, 2002), but there has not yet been a systematic review on this topic. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to explore the influence of social support on community integration through a review of the existing literature. An extensive literature search was conducted, resulting in 32 articles that met the search criteria. These articles were organized into three categories: defining community integration, supportive relationships, and mental health services. The search results are analyzed according to the types of support being provided. Article strengths, limitations, implications, and future directions are also addressed. Overall, the findings of this review suggest that social support, which may be provided by a variety of individuals and services, plays an important role in promoting community integration for individuals with serious mental illnesses. Therefore, as community mental health research and practice continues to promote community integration for individuals with serious mental illnesses, the mental health field should emphasize the importance of social support as a key factor influencing community integration.

Emotional and Behavioral Problems among Left-Behind Children in Indonesia.

Background:The number of migrant workers in Indonesia has been increasing over the years. Most of the migrant workers are females with children, creating a huge number of left-behind children (LBC). The issue of LBC has become important to discuss because LBC tends to experience more emotional and behavioral problems than non-LBC. The aim of this study was to assess and compare emotional and behavioral problems between LBC and non-LBC in Indonesia. This paper analyzes data from a project by the Community Mental Health Research Group from the Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, held in 2015 − 2016.Materials and MethodsParticipants were 629 adolescents: 359 LBC and 270 non-LBC. The data were acquired in a cross-sectional study conducted in rural Indonesia. Data on emotional and behavioral problems were assessed with Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire, while data related to risk factor variables were collected using multidimensional scale of perceived social support, the 6-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale, and Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis.Results:The prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems in LBC was 28.4% compared to 21% among non-LBC. Peer attachment, communication, social support, and loneliness were identified as factors that impact the emotional and behavioral problems among LBC.Conclusions:LBC has more emotional and behavioral problems than non-LBC. Comprehensive understanding of various protective and risk factors is needed to provide impactful interventions for LBC.

Evaluation of the Applicability and Usefulness of the Latin American Guide for Psychiatric Diagnosis, Revised Version, in Comparison with other International Systems among Latin American Psychiatrists

Background: The Latin American Guide to Psychiatric Diagnosis, Revised Version (GLADP-VR) represents an adaptation of the ICD-10 that seeks through a biopsychosocial approach to better reflect the holistic framework and culture of Latin American countries. This revision of the original GLADP included updated Latin American annotations and a new integrated diagnostic model centered on the person. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate among Latin American psychiatrists the levels of applicability and usefulness of the GLADP-VR in comparison with major international diagnostic classification systems. Method: The survey evaluation instrument included questions about fundamental characteristics of a useful diagnostic guide and comparative questions about the acceptability and usefulness of the GLADP-VR, the original ICD-10, DSM-IV and DSM-5, and suggestions to improve the guide. The sample included 127 Latin American psychiatrists with an interest on Diagnosis and Classification and membership in one of the 17 national psychiatric societies affiliated with Latin American Psychiatric Association (APAL). They were sent the evaluation instrument by e-mail. Thirty-seven (29.1%) responses were obtained. There were no indications of demographic bias among respondents and no-respondents.The vast majority of respondents answered the questionnaire completely. Ninety-two percent reported knowing the GLADP-VR before the survey and 65.6% had actually used it before.Results: The most commonly used diagnostic system was the original ICD-10 (86.5%), followed by the GLADP-VR (56.8%). Regarding applicability, the diagnostic system recognized as the most user-friendly was the ICD-10 followed by the GLADP-VR, with the most difficult being the DSM-5. Concerning diagnostic accuracy, the GLADP-VR was found most useful; and the DSM-5 was least useful. Regarding usefulness for clinical care and professional practice, the ICD-10 was rated highest, followed by the GLADP-VR, and lowest was DSM-5. The least valued in this regard was the DSM-5. Regarding usefulness for yielding a complete view of the clinical situation, the GLADP-VR was best (83.3%), and DSM-5 was the lowest. Concerning cultural and psychosocial contextualization, the GLADP-VR was considered most useful, well above ICD-10 and the DSMs. Furthermore, the GLADP-VR was considered more useful for teaching and research by about 80% of psychiatrists, superior to the other diagnostic systems.Discussion: The findings of this study on the most prevalent use of ICD-10 are consistent with the results of a survey conducted earlier by the World Psychiatric Association across the world. In addition, in the present study less than half of the respondents used regularly the DSMs. The findings of the present study concerning the GLADP-VR were quite consistent with the corresponding findings of an earlier preliminary evaluation of the GLADP-VR. This seems to be related to the GLADP-VR comprehensive personalized diagnostic formulation with various components, including narratives. Conclusions: There are indications that the GLADP-VR is seen in Latin America as having higher diagnostic accuracy, yielding a comprehensive view of the clinical situation and its context, and more suitable for teaching, research, and work in community mental health.

Herding cats and other epic challenges: Creating meaningful stakeholder engagement in community mental health research.

Stakeholder-centered approaches, that restrict patient barriers to clinical community mental health research, affect outcomes. It is suggested that a restructuring of clinical research organizational behavior and attitudes may overcome this problem. It is further advocated that consultation with an engagement of study patient stakeholders encourages their interest in the study, and is essential for successful research. This editorial considers the concept of stakeholder participation and management in the clinical research environment. It further offers practical suggestions for fostering meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Focus Group in Community Mental Health Research: Need for Adaption.

The article presents an analysis of the use of focus groups in researching community mental health users, starting with the reasons for using them, their implementation in mental health service users' research, and the adaptations of focus group use when researching the experiences of users. Based on personal research experience and a review of scientific publications in the Google Scholar, Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCOhost, and Scopus databases, 20 articles published between 2010 and 2016 were selected for targeted content analysis. A checklist for reporting on the use of focus groups with community mental health service users, aiming to improve the comparability, verifiability and validity was developed. Adaptations of the implementation of focus groups in relation to participants' characteristics were suggested. Focus groups are not only useful as a scientific research technique, but also for ensuring service users' participation in decision-making in community mental health and evaluating the quality of the mental health system and services .