To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
No co-productive narrative synthesis of system-level facilitators and barriers to personal recovery in mental illness has been undertaken.
To clarify system-level facilitators and barriers to personal recovery of people with mental illness.
Qualitative study guided by thematic analysis. Data were collected through one focus group, which involved seven service users and three professionals. This group had 11 meetings, each lasting 2 h at a local research institute, between July 2016 to January 2018.
The analysis yielded three themes: barriers inhibiting positive interaction within personal relationship networks, roots of barriers from mental health systems and the social cultural context, and possible solutions to address the roots. Barriers were acknowledged as those related to sense of safety, locus of control within oneself and reunion with self. The roots of barriers were recognised within mental health services, including system without trauma sensitivity, lack of advocacy support and limited access to psychosocial approaches. Roots from social cultural context were also found. There were no narratives relating to facilitators. A possible solution was to address the roots from systems. Social cultural change was called for that makes personalised goals most valued, with an inclusive design that overcomes stigma, to achieve an open and accepting community.
The analysis yielded system-level barriers specific to each recovery process. Roots of barriers that need transformation to facilitate personal recovery were identified within mental health services. Social interventions should be further explored to translate the suggested social cultural changes into action.
Autonomy is a key factor in the reduction of inequitable physical healthcare among people with severe mental illness compared with the general population.
To clarify the critical mechanism underlying autonomy in physical health promotion based on the perspectives of people with severe mental illness.
We employed a conventional content analysis of narrative data from the Healthy Active Lives in Japan (HeAL Japan) workshop meetings.
‘Inhibited autonomy’ was extracted as a central component and shaped by the users’ experiences, both in a healthcare setting and in real life. This component emerged based on the lack of an empowerment mechanism in psychiatric services.
A barrier to the encouragement of autonomy in physical health promotion was found in current psychiatric services. An effective strategy should be explored to foster an empowerment mechanism in psychiatric and mental health services.
In April 2016, the Japanese government introduced an additional benefit for dementia care in acute care hospitals (dementia care benefit) into the universal benefit schedule of public healthcare insurance program. The benefit includes a financial disincentive to use physical restraint. The present study investigated the association between the dementia care benefit and the use of physical restraint among inpatients with dementia in general acute care settings.
A national cross-sectional study design was used. Eight types of care units from acute care hospitals under the public healthcare insurance program were invited to participate in this study. A total of 23,539 inpatients with dementia from 2,355 care units in 937 hospitals were included for the analysis. Dementia diagnosis or symptoms included any signs of cognitive impairment. The primary outcome measure was “use of physical restraint.”
Among patients, the point prevalence of physical restraint was 44.5% (n = 10,480). Controlling for patient, unit, and hospital characteristics, patients in units with dementia care benefit had significantly lower percentage of physical restraint than those in any other units (42.0% vs. 47.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confident interval [0.63, 0.92]).
The financial incentive may have reduced the risk of physical restraint among patients with dementia in acute care hospitals. However, use of physical restraint was still common among patients with dementia in units with the dementia care benefit. An educational package to guide dementia care approach including the avoidance of physical restraint by healthcare professionals in acute care hospitals is recommended.
Dementia involves a progressive decline in many functional areas. Policy and practice guidelines should cover the entire course of the disease from early detection to the end-of-life. The present study aimed to evaluate the contents of national dementia strategies with a focus on palliative care content.
We employed qualitative content analyses. Sixteen national dementia strategies from 14 countries were reviewed. Using open coding, the contents were compared to the domains and recommendations of the palliative care in dementia white paper of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC).
Although palliative care was not explicitly referred to in eight of the 14 countries and only to a limited extent in three countries, a number of domains from the EAPC white paper were well represented, including “person-centered care, communication, and shared decision making”; “continuity of care”; and “family care and involvement.” Three countries that referred to palliative care did so explicitly, with two domains being well represented: “education of the health care team”; and “societal and ethical issues.” The strategies all lacked reference to the domain of “prognostication and timely recognition of dying” and to spiritual caregiving.
National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as “palliative care.” In view of the growing numbers of people dying with dementia, preparation for the last phase of life should be added to national strategies.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.