The psychosis treatment gap and its consequences in rural Ethiopia.
Adult
Cross-Sectional Studies
Ethiopia
/ epidemiology
Female
Health Services Accessibility
/ statistics & numerical data
Healthcare Disparities
/ statistics & numerical data
Humans
Income
Male
Mental Health Services
/ statistics & numerical data
Middle Aged
Psychotic Disorders
/ therapy
Rural Population
/ statistics & numerical data
Developing country
Low and middle-income country
Severe mental disorder
The Butajira treatment gap questionnaire
Treatment access
Treatment coverage
Treatment gap
Journal
BMC psychiatry
ISSN: 1471-244X
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychiatry
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968559
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 10 2019
29 10 2019
Historique:
received:
22
10
2018
accepted:
10
09
2019
entrez:
31
10
2019
pubmed:
31
10
2019
medline:
28
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The "treatment gap" (TG) for mental disorders, widely advocated by the WHO in low-and middle-income countries, is an important indicator of the extent to which a health system fails to meet the care needs of people with mental disorder at the population level. While there is limited research on the TG in these countries, there is even a greater paucity of studies looking at TG beyond a unidimensional understanding. This study explores several dimensions of the TG construct for people with psychosis in Sodo, a rural district in Ethiopia, and its implications for building a more holistic capacity for mental health services. The study was a cross-sectional survey of 300 adult participants with psychosis identified through community-based case detection and confirmed through subsequent structured clinical evaluations. The Butajira Treatment Gap Questionnaire (TGQ), a new customised tool with 83 items developed by the Ethiopia research team, was administered to evaluate several TG dimensions (access, adequacy and effectiveness of treatment, and impact/consequence of the treatment gap) across a range of provider types corresponding with the WHO pyramid service framework. Lifetime and current access gap for biomedical care were 41.8 and 59.9% respectively while the corresponding figures for faith and traditional healing (FTH) were 15.1 and 45.2%. Of those who had received biomedical care for their current episode, 71.7% did not receive minimally adequate care. Support from the community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were negligible. Those with education (Adj. OR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.2, 3.8) and history of use of FTH (Adj. OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.9-5.4) were more likely to use biomedical care. Inadequate biomedical care was associated with increased lifetime risk of adverse experiences, such as history of restraint, homelessness, accidents and assaults. This is the first study of its kind. Viewing TG not as a unidimensional, but as a complex, multi-dimensional construct, offers a more realistic and holistic understanding of health beliefs, help-seeking behaviors, and need for care. The reconceptualized multidimensional TG construct could assist mental health services capacity building advocacy and policy efforts and allow community and NGOs play a larger role in supporting mental healthcare.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The "treatment gap" (TG) for mental disorders, widely advocated by the WHO in low-and middle-income countries, is an important indicator of the extent to which a health system fails to meet the care needs of people with mental disorder at the population level. While there is limited research on the TG in these countries, there is even a greater paucity of studies looking at TG beyond a unidimensional understanding. This study explores several dimensions of the TG construct for people with psychosis in Sodo, a rural district in Ethiopia, and its implications for building a more holistic capacity for mental health services.
METHOD
The study was a cross-sectional survey of 300 adult participants with psychosis identified through community-based case detection and confirmed through subsequent structured clinical evaluations. The Butajira Treatment Gap Questionnaire (TGQ), a new customised tool with 83 items developed by the Ethiopia research team, was administered to evaluate several TG dimensions (access, adequacy and effectiveness of treatment, and impact/consequence of the treatment gap) across a range of provider types corresponding with the WHO pyramid service framework.
RESULTS
Lifetime and current access gap for biomedical care were 41.8 and 59.9% respectively while the corresponding figures for faith and traditional healing (FTH) were 15.1 and 45.2%. Of those who had received biomedical care for their current episode, 71.7% did not receive minimally adequate care. Support from the community and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were negligible. Those with education (Adj. OR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.2, 3.8) and history of use of FTH (Adj. OR: 3.2; 95% CI: 1.9-5.4) were more likely to use biomedical care. Inadequate biomedical care was associated with increased lifetime risk of adverse experiences, such as history of restraint, homelessness, accidents and assaults.
CONCLUSION
This is the first study of its kind. Viewing TG not as a unidimensional, but as a complex, multi-dimensional construct, offers a more realistic and holistic understanding of health beliefs, help-seeking behaviors, and need for care. The reconceptualized multidimensional TG construct could assist mental health services capacity building advocacy and policy efforts and allow community and NGOs play a larger role in supporting mental healthcare.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31664977
doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2281-6
pii: 10.1186/s12888-019-2281-6
pmc: PMC6819476
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
325Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/S001255/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/M025470/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Nov;82(11):858-66
pubmed: 15640922
Can J Cardiol. 2010 Jun-Jul;26(6):297-302
pubmed: 20548975
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991 Aug;48(8):764-70
pubmed: 1883262
JAMA. 2004 Jun 2;291(21):2581-90
pubmed: 15173149
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Oct;187:366-71
pubmed: 16199797
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003 Nov;38(11):625-31
pubmed: 14614550
Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2002 Sep;48(3):200-8
pubmed: 12413248
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jul 07;14:194
pubmed: 24999041
PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001359
pubmed: 23300387
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;41(6):444-51
pubmed: 16572275
Trials. 2016 Jun 24;17(1):299
pubmed: 27342215
World Psychiatry. 2010 Jun;9(2):98-102
pubmed: 20671898
Schizophr Bull. 2009 May;35(3):646-54
pubmed: 18448478
Am J Public Health. 2002 Jan;92(1):92-8
pubmed: 11772769
Br J Psychiatry. 2016 Jan;208 Suppl 56:s4-12
pubmed: 26447174
Am J Public Health. 1996 Jul;86(7):926-8
pubmed: 8669514
Epilepsia. 2002;43 Suppl 6:31-3
pubmed: 12190976
JAMA. 2003 Jun 18;289(23):3152-60
pubmed: 12813121
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 30;10(11):e0143572
pubmed: 26618915
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Jun;82(6):400
pubmed: 15356929
Transcult Psychiatry. 2008 Dec;45(4):566-89
pubmed: 19091726
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;3(2):154-70
pubmed: 26851329
Global Health. 2017 Jul 11;13(1):47
pubmed: 28693614
Bull World Health Organ. 2012 Jan 1;90(1):47-54, 54A-54B
pubmed: 22271964
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Sep 07;16(1):311
pubmed: 27604273
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2006 Dec;114(6):426-34
pubmed: 17087791
Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2007 Sep;30(3):511-33
pubmed: 17720034
Qual Life Res. 2014 Aug;23(6):1823-31
pubmed: 24420705
Clin Ther. 2004 Apr;26(4):598-606
pubmed: 15189757
World Psychiatry. 2010 Oct;9(3):169-76
pubmed: 20975864
PLoS One. 2015 May 11;10(5):e0126666
pubmed: 25962075
J Affect Disord. 2009 Jul;116(1-2):4-11
pubmed: 19007996
Int J Ment Health Syst. 2017 Jun 8;11:38
pubmed: 28603550
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Apr 5;15(1):64
pubmed: 28381230