Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/preview/1797952/1-s2.0-S0140673618322797-main.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/104804/2/hdl_104804.pdf

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.

Stigma, Discrimination, Social Exclusion, and Mental Health

Global mental health

Improving mental health care

espanolObjetivos. La “Escala de Discriminacion y Estigma” (DISC) fue el primer instrumento disenado para evaluar experiencias de discriminacion referidas por pacientes con trastornos mentales. El objetivo principal de este estudio es validar la version espanola de la escala DISC 12 en poblacion con esquizofrenia y, como objetivos especificos, realizar la validacion externa con el Cuestionario de Autoestigma (SSQ) y la Escala de Link (PDD) y validar su consistencia interna y la fiabilidad temporal y entre observadores. Metodos. 86 individuos con esquizofrenia fueron entrevistados en dos tiempos (entre una y dos semanas) por dos evaluadores. Se estudiaron sus caracteristicas sociodemograficas y clinicas y se aplicaron las escalas: DISC-12, SSQ, PDD, Escala de Funcionamiento Social (SFS) y Evaluacion del Funcionamiento (GAF). Resultados. La consistencia interna resulto un a Cronbach entre 0,741 y 0,850. Las subescalas “Trato injusto” y “Trato positivo” tuvieron a Cronbach superior a 0,79, pero las subscalas “Anticipacion de la discriminacion” y “Superacion del estigma” no tuvieron adecuada consistencia. La fiabilidad test-retest de las cuatro subescalas fue superior a 0,67. La fiabilidad entre evaluadores mostro que 21 items tuvieron puntuacion superior a 0,8, 10 entre 0,6-0,8 y uno, menos de 0,6. DISC-12 se relaciono significativamente con el Segundo factor de PDD (self-stigma) y con SSQ. Conclusiones. La version espanola de la escala DISC 12 es valida, tiene una buena consistencia interna, buena fiabilidad test-retest y entre evaluadores y tiene una buena validez convergente con la SSQ y PDD. Las subescalas “Trato injusto” y “Trato positivo” son las mas robustas. EnglishAims. The “Discrimination and Stigma Scale” (DISC) was the first instrument specifically designed to evaluate reported experiences of discrimination by people with mental disorders. This study aims to validate DISC-12 version in Spanish population with Schizophrenia and, as specific objectives, to do the external validation with the Self-Stigma Questionnaire (SSQ) scale and Link PDD scale and to validate their internal consistency, temporal and inter-rater reliability. Methods. 86 individuals with schizophrenia were interviewed at two time points (between one to two weeks) by two raters. Additionally to assess their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, following scales were administered: DISC 12, SSQ, PDD, Social Functioning Scale (SFS) and Global Assessment of Function (GAF). Results. Internal consistency as a whole results a Cronbach a between 0.741 and 0.850. Subscales “Unfair treatment” and “Positive treatment” have a Cronbach a higher than 0.79, but the both subscales “Stopping Self” and “Overcoming stigma” do not have in themselves an adequate consistency. Test-retest reliability shows that four subscales have values higher than 0.67. Inter-rater reliability assessment result that 21 items score values above 0.8, 10 be- tween 0.6-0.8 and one lower than 0.6. DISC-12 was significantly related with the second factor of the PDD (self-stigma) and SSQ. Conclusions. The Spanish version of the DISC 12 scale is valid, has good internal consistency, is reliable both in terms of test-retest and inter-rater reliability and has good convergent validity with the SSQ and PDD, and the “Unfair treatment” and “Positive Treatment” subscales were the most robust of the four subscales.

Validation of the spanish version of the discrimination and stigma scale (DISC 12).

BackgroundStrengthening of mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) requires the involvement of appropriately skilled and committed individuals from a range of stakeholder groups. Currently, few evidence-based capacity-building activities and materials are available to enable and sustain comprehensive improvements.AimsWithin the Emerald project, the goal of this study was to evaluate capacity-building activities for three target groups: (a) service users with mental health conditions and their caregivers; (b) policymakers and planners; and (c) mental health researchers.MethodWe developed and tailored three short courses (between 1 and 5 days long). We then implemented and evaluated these short courses on 24 different occasions. We assessed satisfaction among 527 course participants as well as pre–post changes in knowledge in six LMICs (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda). Changes in research capacity of partner Emerald institutions was also assessed through monitoring of academic outputs of participating researchers and students and via anonymous surveys.ResultsShort courses were associated with high levels of satisfaction and led to improvements in knowledge across target groups. In relation to institutional capacity building, all partner institutions reported improvements in research capacity for most aspects of mental health system strengthening and global mental health, and many of these positive changes were attributed to the Emerald programme. In terms of outputs, eight PhD students submitted a total of 10 papers relating to their PhD work (range 0–4) and were involved in 14 grant applications, of which 43% (n = 6) were successful.ConclusionsThe Emerald project has shown that building capacity of key stakeholders in mental health system strengthening is possible. However, the starting point and appropriate strategies for this may vary across different countries, depending on the local context, needs and resources.Declaration of interestS.E.L. received consulting fees from Lundbeck.

Evaluation of capacity-building strategies for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, policymakers and planners, and researchers

Graham Thornicroft

Papers

Stigma, Discrimination, Social Exclusion, and Mental Health

Global mental health

Improving mental health care

Validation of the spanish version of the discrimination and stigma scale (DISC 12).

Evaluation of capacity-building strategies for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, policymakers and planners, and researchers