Assessing social recovery of vulnerable youth in global mental health settings: a pilot study of clinical research tools in Malaysia.
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 06 2019
20 06 2019
Historique:
received:
12
11
2018
accepted:
28
05
2019
entrez:
22
6
2019
pubmed:
22
6
2019
medline:
31
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A social recovery approach to youth mental health focuses on increasing the time spent in valuable and meaningful structured activities, with a view to preventing enduring mental health problems and social disability. In Malaysia, access to mental health care is particularly limited and little research has focused on identifying young people at risk of serious socially disabling mental health problems such as psychosis. We provide preliminary evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of core social recovery assessment tools in a Malaysian context, comparing the experiential process of engaging young Malaysian participants in social recovery assessments with prior accounts from a UK sample. Nine vulnerable young people from low-income backgrounds were recruited from a non-government social enterprise and partner organisations in Peninsular Malaysia. Participants completed a battery of social recovery assessment tools (including time use, unusual experiences, self-schematic beliefs and values). Time for completion and completion rates were used as indices of feasibility. Acceptability was examined using qualitative interviews in which participants were asked to reflect on the experience of completing the assessment tools. Following a deductive approach, the themes were examined for fit with previous UK qualitative accounts of social recovery assessments. Feasibility was indicated by relatively efficient completion time and high completion rates. Qualitative interviews highlighted the perceived benefits of social recovery assessments, such as providing psychoeducation, aiding in self-reflection and stimulating goal setting, in line with findings from UK youth samples. We provide preliminary evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of social recovery assessment tools in a low-resource context, comparing the experiential process of engaging young Malaysian participants in social recovery assessments with prior accounts from a UK sample. We also suggest that respondents may derive some personal and psychoeducational benefits from participating in assessments (e.g. of their time use and mental health) within a social recovery framework.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
A social recovery approach to youth mental health focuses on increasing the time spent in valuable and meaningful structured activities, with a view to preventing enduring mental health problems and social disability. In Malaysia, access to mental health care is particularly limited and little research has focused on identifying young people at risk of serious socially disabling mental health problems such as psychosis. We provide preliminary evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of core social recovery assessment tools in a Malaysian context, comparing the experiential process of engaging young Malaysian participants in social recovery assessments with prior accounts from a UK sample.
METHODS
Nine vulnerable young people from low-income backgrounds were recruited from a non-government social enterprise and partner organisations in Peninsular Malaysia. Participants completed a battery of social recovery assessment tools (including time use, unusual experiences, self-schematic beliefs and values). Time for completion and completion rates were used as indices of feasibility. Acceptability was examined using qualitative interviews in which participants were asked to reflect on the experience of completing the assessment tools. Following a deductive approach, the themes were examined for fit with previous UK qualitative accounts of social recovery assessments.
RESULTS
Feasibility was indicated by relatively efficient completion time and high completion rates. Qualitative interviews highlighted the perceived benefits of social recovery assessments, such as providing psychoeducation, aiding in self-reflection and stimulating goal setting, in line with findings from UK youth samples.
CONCLUSIONS
We provide preliminary evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of social recovery assessment tools in a low-resource context, comparing the experiential process of engaging young Malaysian participants in social recovery assessments with prior accounts from a UK sample. We also suggest that respondents may derive some personal and psychoeducational benefits from participating in assessments (e.g. of their time use and mental health) within a social recovery framework.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31221136
doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2164-x
pii: 10.1186/s12888-019-2164-x
pmc: PMC6585120
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
188Références
Compr Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;55 Suppl 1:S46-51
pubmed: 23679983
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2009 May;3(2):123-30
pubmed: 21352185
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2017 Jul;136(1):74-84
pubmed: 28542726
Asian J Psychiatr. 2013 Dec;6(6):528-31
pubmed: 24309866
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2016 Aug;10(4):308-15
pubmed: 25113068
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2015 Oct;24(4):679-97
pubmed: 26346383
Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2009 Jan-Mar;18(1):23-33
pubmed: 19378696
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;40(11):1337-45
pubmed: 11699809
Schizophr Res. 2009 Apr;109(1-3):15-23
pubmed: 19233621
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018 Aug;12(4):740-746
pubmed: 28776920
Psychiatry Res. 2017 Aug;254:179-189
pubmed: 28463716
Compr Psychiatry. 2017 May;75:94-102
pubmed: 28342379
Schizophr Res. 2019 Jan;203:99-104
pubmed: 29070442
Psychol Psychother. 2014 Sep;87(3):357-71
pubmed: 23983132
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2015 Mar 10;9:10
pubmed: 25774215
Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Jan;5(1):41-50
pubmed: 29242000
Schizophr Res. 2015 Feb;161(2-3):188-93
pubmed: 25541138
Psychol Med. 2006 Jun;36(6):749-59
pubmed: 16563204
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;64(1):49-55
pubmed: 29103338
Int J Cult Ment Health. 2015 Apr 3;8(2):125-136
pubmed: 26000035
Soc Work. 2005 Apr;50(2):162-73
pubmed: 15853193
Trials. 2017 Jul 11;18(1):315
pubmed: 28693622
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Feb;206(2):122-7
pubmed: 25431429
Child Care Health Dev. 2015 Jan;41(1):76-83
pubmed: 24673488
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;56(3):345-65
pubmed: 25649325
BMC Psychiatry. 2017 Jul 1;17(1):236
pubmed: 28666425
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015 Jun;50(6):879-93
pubmed: 25631693
Schizophr Bull. 2012 Nov;38(6):1288-96
pubmed: 22516147
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2005 Nov-Dec;39(11-12):964-71
pubmed: 16343296
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016 Feb 16;12:357-73
pubmed: 26937191
Schizophr Res. 2018 Nov;201:46-53
pubmed: 29778294
Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998 Sep;7(3):125-30
pubmed: 9826298
Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;12(5):879-885
pubmed: 27600941
Br J Soc Psychol. 2016 Dec;55(4):613-642
pubmed: 27578549