Is it the right time to implement Community Treatment Order in India?

Comparing attitudes towards compulsory interventions in severe and persistent mental illness among psychiatrists in India and Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Psychiatrists face a major ethical challenge when deciding whether to make use of coercive measures in the treatment process of patients suffering from severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI). As India and Switzerland show major cultural, political and financial differences, it is hypothesized that attitudes towards coercive measures among Indian and Swiss psychiatrists will vary too. Exploring differences in attitudes between cultures strengthens the critical reflection on one's own stances and in consequence, on our way of action. Especially when it comes to situations involving power imbalances between patients and health practitioners, self-reflection is essential to prevent ethically inappropriate behavior.

METHODS

An online survey on aspects of care for patients with SPMI was sent to 3'056 members of the Indian Psychiatric Society between April and June 2020 and to 1'311 members of the Swiss Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy between February and March 2016. The respondents' answers were compared. This article deals with the questionnaire's items on autonomous decision making and the implementation of coercive measures in clinical practice. More precisely, participating psychiatrists were asked to rate the importance of patient's autonomy in general and their willingness to apply coercive measures regarding two specific case vignettes depicting a patient with schizophrenia and one with depression. The statistical analysis, namely descriptive data analysis and calculation of arithmetic means, Shapiro Wilks tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, was carried out using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.

RESULTS

Answers were received from 206 psychiatrists in India and 457 psychiatrists in Switzerland. Indian participants tended to value autonomous decision making as slightly less important than Swiss participants (62.2% vs. 91%, p =.01). Regarding a case of severe and persistent depression, psychiatrists in the Indian group were on average more in favor of acting against the wishes of the patient (55% vs. 34.1%, p <.0001) as well as of accepting a temporary decrease in quality of life due to coercion (40% vs. 23%, p =.008). Answers concerning a case of schizophrenia revealed that Indian participants were more in favor of acting against the patient's wishes than Swiss participants (39% vs. 37%, p =.007), whereas the comparison whether to accept a temporary decrease in quality of life regarding this case showed no significant difference (p =.328).

CONCLUSIONS

The significant difference in attitudes towards coercive measures among Indian compared to Swiss psychiatrists found in this study might arise from a predominantly more collectivist society in India compared to Switzerland. Moreover, differences in financial resources, the organization of the health care system, and the historical background might have an influence. Continuous and critical reflection on one's own views and behavior is essential, especially if ethical principles and individual rights could be violated through a power imbalance, as in the case of coercive measures.

Perspectives of Community Nurses on Treatment Engagement of Persons with Severe Mental Illnesses (PwSMI): A Qualitative Study from South India

Background

There is increasing evidence of the need for treatment engagement between Persons with Severe Mental Illnesses (PwSMIs) and Mental Health Professionals (MHPs). This therapeutic process involves collaborative work between patients and MHPs, which improves the condition. Community nurses are uniquely positioned to facilitate this process as they act as the focal point of interaction between patients and the health system.

Methods

This qualitative study explored the community nurses' experiences in treatment engagement with PwSMI through eight group interviews of 35 community nurses from District Mental Health Programs (DMHPs) across Karnataka (South India) from February 2020 to March 2020. The audio recordings of the interviews were transcribed and coded to arrive at themes and subthemes.

Results

The major themes identified were factors influencing treatment engagement, strategies to tackle treatment nonengagement, and challenges in dealing with nonengagement. The reasons for nonengagement were lack of insight and lack of knowledge of sociocultural, logistic, and treatment-related factors. The DMHP teams contacted patients through phone calls, home visits, and liaisons with health workers and intervened with them through education and depot injections. The major challenges were difficulty conducting home visits, distances, the unavailability of medications, and the need for adequate infrastructure and human resources.

Conclusion

Community nurses address a few factors of nonengagement, such as insight, sociocultural factors, and treatment-related factors. Addressing the systemic challenges and adequate training of nurses in intervening in the dropped-out PwSMIs would help to reduce the treatment gap.