Anna Scheyett

Bio: Anna Scheyett is an academic researcher from University of Georgia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mental health & Social work. The author has an hindex of 18, co-authored 43 publications receiving 934 citations. Previous affiliations of Anna Scheyett include University of South Carolina & University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Can We Talk?: Using Facilitated Dialogue to Positively Change Student Attitudes Towards Persons with Mental Illness

Abstract: To facilitate the recovery of people with mental illness (consumers of mental health services), social workers must be strengths-focused and believe in the potential for consumer growth and improvement. Unfortunately, social workers often share the negative, stigmatizing view of mental illness held by much of the general population. In this article, the authors describe a facilitated dialogue process between consumers and master's level social work students that had a goal of positively shifting students' attitudes towards consumers. Pre/post-tests using standardised instruments, as well as post-dialogue semi-structured interviews, showed that the dialogue was effective in improving student attitudes towards consumers.

Multilevel challenges to engagement in HIV care after prison release: a theory-informed qualitative study comparing prisoners’ perspectives before and after community reentry

Abstract: Although prison provides the opportunity for HIV diagnosis and access to in-prison care, following release, many HIV-infected inmates experience clinical setbacks, including nonadherence to antiretrovirals, elevations in viral load, and HIV disease progression. HIV-infected former inmates face numerous barriers to successful community reentry and to accessing healthcare. However, little is known about the outcome expectations of HIV-infected inmates for release, how their post-release lives align with pre-release expectations, and how these processes influence engagement in HIV care following release from prison. We conducted semi-structured interviews (24 pre- and 13 post-release) with HIV-infected inmates enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of a case management intervention to enhance post-release linkage to care. Two researchers independently coded data using a common codebook. Intercoder reliability was strong (kappa = 0.86). We analyzed data using Grounded Theory methodology and Applied Thematic Analysis. We collected and compared baseline sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of all cohort participants who did and did not participate in the qualitative interviews using Fisher’s Exact Tests for categorical measures and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for continuous measures. Most participants were heterosexual, middle-aged, single, African American men and women with histories of substance use. Substudy participants were more likely to anticipate living with family/friends and needing income assistance post-release. Most were taking antiretrovirals prior to release and anticipated needing help securing health benefits and medications post-release. Before release, most participants felt confident they would be able to manage their HIV. However, upon release, many experienced intermittent or prolonged periods of antiretroviral nonadherence, largely due to substance use relapse or delays in care initiation. Substance use was precipitated by stressful life experiences, including stigma, and contact with drug-using social networks. As informed by the Social Cognitive Theory and HIV Stigma Framework, findings illustrate the reciprocal relationships among substance use, experiences of stigma, pre- and post-release environments, and skills needed to engage in HIV care. These findings underscore the need for comprehensive evidence-based interventions to prepare inmates to transition from incarceration to freedom, particularly those that strengthen linkage to HIV care and focus on realities of reentry, including stigma, meeting basic needs, preventing substance abuse, and identifying community resources.

Understanding the personal and clinical utility of psychiatric advance directives: a qualitative perspective.

Abstract: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are legal tools that allow competent individuals to declare preferences for future mental health treatment when they may not be capable of doing so as a result of a psychiatric crisis. PADs allow individuals to maintain self-determination during times when they are most vulnerable to loss of autonomy and in need of assistance to make their preferences known and honored. This article describes the content of twenty-eight open-ended, semi-structured qualitative interviews of adults with PADs who have experienced psychiatric crises. The qualitative analysis revealed three major themes from the interviews: (1) PADs as tools for empowerment and self-determination, (2) limited knowledge of PADs among service providers; and (3) difficulties communicating PADs to inpatient staff. In general, many participants expressed enthusiasm of the implementation of PADs but concern regarding clinicians' general lack of awareness about them. Additionally, some consumers discussed discomfort in even mentioning that they had a PAD to clinicians for fear of a negative response from them, or some type of involuntary treatment during their hospitalization. However, participants consistently viewed PADs as a positive tool to promote autonomy with the potential to facilitate stronger patient-provider relationships. Therefore, when working with individuals in psychiatric crisis who have a PAD, and who have never before experienced a sense of control over their own treatment, clinicians must recognize the potential troubling disequilibrium this sense of control may engender. In sum, though the most significant challenges facing the implementation of PADs involve clinicians' familiarity with and education about PADs, much promise for the future growth of PADs lies in the benefits perceived by the patients.

Clinical Decision Making and Views About Psychiatric Advance Directives

Abstract: OBJECTIVES: Psychiatric advance directives allow competent persons to document advance instructions or designate a health care agent to communicate their preferences for future mental health treatment in the event of an incapacitating crisis. Although laws authorizing psychiatric advance directives have proliferated, little is known about clinicians' understanding and perceptions of these legal tools. METHODS: A total of 597 mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) completed a survey about their attitudes toward psychiatric advance directives and decision making about following such directives. RESULTS: Approximately half the sample (47 percent) agreed that advance instructions would be helpful to consumers with severe mental illnesses, and a majority (57 percent) endorsed health care agents as beneficial. Regardless of profession, clinicians had more positive attitudes about psychiatric advance directives when they correctly recognized that they were not required by ...

Clinicians' attitudes regarding barriers to the implementation of psychiatric advance directives.

Abstract: Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) may include documenting advance instructions (AIs) and/or designating health care agents (HCAs). Laws authorizing PADs have proliferated in the past decade, but there has been little research regarding perceptions of barriers to the implementation of PADs among groups of mental health professionals. A total of N=591 mental health professionals (psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) completed a survey regarding their perceptions of potential barriers to the effective implementation of PADs. Across the three professional groups barriers related to operational features of the work environment (e.g., lack of communication between staff, lack of access to the document) were reported at a higher rate than clinical barriers (e.g., inappropriate treatment requests, consumers’ desire to change their mind about treatment during crises). However, psychiatrists were more likely to report clinical barriers to implementation than both psychologists and social workers. In multivariable analyses, legal defensiveness, employment in public sector mental health services, and a belief that treatment refusals will outweigh the benefits of PADs were associated with more perceived barriers, whereas age and endorsing positive perceptions of PADs were associated with fewer perceived barriers. Psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers tend to perceive significant potential barriers to PADs, related to operational aspects of these professionals’ work environment as well as certain clinical features of PADs for persons with severe mental illness. Additionally, legal defensiveness and general endorsement of PADs appear to shape perceptions of barriers to the effective implementation of PADs.

The Answer Is 17 Years, What Is the Question

Abstract: This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.

Abstract: Michel Foucault takes the reader on a serendipitous journey in tracing the history of madness from the 16th to the 18th centuries. Utilizing original documents, the author recreates the mood, the place, and the proper perspective in the history of madness. Madness or folly is viewed as part of the human condition and to be examined and illuminated through one of its many facets. At the end of the Middle Ages madness was seen either as a tragic or comic phenomenon. The Renaissance, with Erasmus' Praise of Folly , demonstrated how imagination and its derivatives were to thinkers of that day. The French Revolution introduced the so-called medical approach. Madness is a ubiquitous phenomenon that has common roots not only in medicine but in poetry and tragedy. Shakespeare brilliantly describes psychological phenomena with even greater clarity than Tuke or Wills. The author weaves a fascinating history showing the changing pattern of