Mental health reform: Europe at the cross-roads

Transitioning to community-based mental health service delivery: opportunities for Ukraine

Background and objectives: Ukraine's mental health system has been found to be inadequate and unresponsive to the needs of the population, in view of its emphasis on inpatient service delivery. This study sought to identify potential changes to the organization and financing of mental health services within the Ukrainian health system that would facilitate the delivery of mental health services in a community-based setting. Methodology: A systematic literature review was undertaken to identify organizational and financing features that have been successfully used to enable and incentivize the delivery of community-based mental health services in Central or Eastern European and/or former Soviet Union countries. Results: There was limited literature on the organizational and financing features that facilitate the delivery of community-based care. Key facilitators for transitioning from institution-based to community-based mental health service delivery include; a clear vision for community-based care, investment in the mental health system, and mechanisms that allow health funding to follow the patient through the health system. Conclusions: Ukraine should adopt strategic purchasing mechanisms to address inefficiency in the financing of its mental health system, and prioritize collaborative planning and delivery of mental health services. Ongoing reform of the Ukrainian health system provides momentum for instituting such changes.

Solving a methodological challenge in work stress evaluation with the Stress Assessment and Research Toolkit (StART): a study protocol

Background

Stress evaluation is a field of strong interest and challenging due to several methodological aspects in the evaluation process. The aim of this study is to propose a study protocol to test a new method (i.e., the Stress Assessment and Research Toolkit) to assess psychosocial risk factors at work.

Design

This method addresses several methodological issues (e.g., subjective vs. objective, qualitative vs quantitative data) by assessing work-related stressors using different kinds of data: i) organisational archival data (organisational indicators sheet); ii) qualitative data (focus group); iii) worker perception (questionnaire); and iv) observational data (observational checklist) using mixed methods research. In addition, it allows positive and negative aspects of work to be considered conjointly, using an approach that considers at the same time job demands and job resources.

Discussion

The integration of these sources of data can reduce the theoretical and methodological bias related to stress research in the work setting, allows researchers and professionals to obtain a reliable description of workers’ stress, providing a more articulate vision of psychosocial risks, and allows a large amount of data to be collected. Finally, the implementation of the method ensures in the long term a primary prevention for psychosocial risk management in that it aims to reduce or modify the intensity, frequency or duration of organisational demands.

Understanding how men experience, express and cope with mental distress: where next?

In line with the shift towards prioritising lay accounts and narratives of chronic illness in sociology, there is an emerging literature on men, their subjectivities and experiences of mental distress. We argue in this paper that subjectivities and distress among men are an important area for critical sociological research. Very little is known about men's subjectivities or the meanings they give to - and how they cope with or seek help for - distress. At the same time, current theories of gender relations, performativity and wellbeing as they pertain to men are likely to shed further light on subjectivity and distress. However, current theories (and qualitative research involving men and women) are pointing to considerable complexity. In this paper, we outline what is known about distress and men, and consider the utility of gender relations, performativity, subjectivities and wellbeing for a better understanding of distress. We also ask: What other factors influence distress, and how should these be considered in relation to men and masculinities? What are the implications for research and policy?