Knowledge Translation for Improving the Care of Deinstitutionalized People With Severe Mental Illness in Health Policy

Improving Care for Deinstitutionalized People With Mental Disorders: Experiences of the Use of Knowledge Translation Tools

Background: The deinstitutionalization process is complex, long-term and many countries fail to achieve progress and consolidation. Informing decision-makers about appropriate strategies and changes in mental health policies can be a key factor for it. This study aimed to develop an evidence brief to summarize the best available evidence to improve care for deinstitutionalized patients with severe mental disorders in the community. Methods: We used the SUPPORT (Supporting Policy Relevant Reviews and Trials) tools to elaborate the evidence brief and to organize a policy dialogue with 24 stakeholders. A systematic search was performed in 10 electronic databases and the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) was assessed by AMSTAR 2. Results: Fifteen SRs were included (comprising 378 studies and 69,736 participants), of varying methodological quality (3 high-quality SRs, 2 moderate-quality SRs, 7 low-quality SRs, 3 critically low SRs). Six strategies were identified: (i). Psychoeducation; (ii). Anti-stigma programs, (iii). Intensive case management; (iv). Community mental health teams; (v). Assisted living; and (vi). Interventions for acute psychiatric episodes. They were associated with improvements on a global status, satisfaction with the service, reduction on relapse, and hospitalization. Challenges to implementation of any of them included: stigma, the shortage of specialized human resources, limited political and budgetary support. Conclusions: These strategies could guide future actions and policymaking to improve mental health outcomes.

Familiarity for Serious Mental Illness in Help-Seeking Adolescents at Clinical High Risk of Psychosis

Aim: Ultrahigh-risk (UHR) individuals have an increased vulnerability to psychosis because of accumulating environmental and/or genetic risk factors. Although original research examined established risk factors for psychosis in the UHR state, these findings are scarce and often contradictory. The aims of this study were (a) to investigate the prevalence of severe mental illness (SMI) in family members of distinct subgroups of adolescents identified through the UHR criteria [i.e., non-UHR vs. UHR vs. first-episode psychosis (FEP)] and (b) to examine any relevant associations of family vulnerability and genetic risk and functioning deterioration (GRFD) syndrome with clinical and psychopathological characteristics in the UHR group. Methods: Adolescents (n = 147) completed an ad hoc sociodemographic/clinical schedule and the Comprehensive Assessment of At-Risk Mental States to investigate the clinical status. Results: More than 60% UHR patients had a family history of SMI, and approximately a third of them had at least a first-degree relative with psychosis or other SMI. A GRFD syndrome was detected in ~35% of UHR adolescents. GRFD adolescents showed baseline high levels of positive symptoms (especially non-bizarre ideas) and emotional disturbances (specifically, observed inappropriate affect). Conclusions: Our results confirm the importance of genetic and/or within-family risk factors in UHR adolescents, suggesting the crucial need of their early detection, also within the network of general practitioners, general hospitals, and the other community agencies (e.g., social services and school).