To send 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 sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
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 sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.
Individual social capital has been recognized as having an important role for health and well-being. We tested the hypothesis that poor social capital increases internalized stigma and, in turn, can reduce empowerment among people with major depressive disorder (MDD).
Materials and methods:
This is a cross-sectional multisite study conducted on a sample of 516 people with MDD in 19 European countries. Structural Equation Models were developed to examine the direct and indirect effects of self-stigma and social capital on empowerment.
Social capital and self-stigma accounted for 56% of the variability in empowerment. Higher social capital was related to lower self-stigma (r = –0.72, P < 0.001) which, in turn, partially mediated the relationship between social capital and empowerment (r = 0.38, P < 0.001).
Social capital plays a key role in the appraisal of empowerment, both directly and through the indirect effect mediated by self-stigma. In order to improve empowerment of people with MDD, we identify strategies to foster individual social capital, and to overcome the negative consequences related to self-stigma for attainment of life goals.
In Italy, considerable variations exist in the organisation of out- and in-patient mental health care. One main issue is whether to prioritise specialisation (distinct clinicians for inpatient and outpatient care) or personal continuity of care (same primary clinician for a given patient within the two settings).
To study the use of psychiatric in-patient units in the Veneto region (Italy) and to evaluate differences between personal continuity of care and specialization systems.
Study conducted in the context of the COFI, multisite naturalistic EU-funded research aiming to compare the two care approaches in 5 European countries. In Italy, baseline data collection was carried out in 14 in-patient units. Data on hospitalisation, diagnosis, severity of the illness (Clinical Global Impression Scale- CGI) and patients’ appraisal of inpatient care (Client Assessment of Treatment Scale- CAT) were collected.
Overall, 1118 patients were assessed. Most frequent diagnostic categories were mood (41.6%) and psychotic (38.3%) disorders, while anxiety disorders were less represented (11.9%). The majority of patients were at least at their second admission (69.4%) and had been voluntary admitted (91.5%). Length of stay and CGI scores were significantly higher for patients with mood and psychotic disorders. No difference in CGI score between the two systems was found. Patients in the continuity of care systems reported higher level of satisfaction with initial treatment and longer hospital stay (P < .001).
These preliminary findings suggest higher service satisfaction for personal continuity system, possibly reflecting a more individualised and comprehensive focus on the patient's needs, rather than on symptoms reduction only.
Disclosure of interest
The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
International treatment guidelines recommend that key elements to reduce the burden of psychosis are the early identification of people and the adoption of specific evidence based interventions.
To investigate the pathway to care and patterns of interventions provided by community based-mental health services (CMHS) to a cohort of first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients over 5-years period, exploring in which degree guidelines are met in routine clinical practice.
Study conducted in the context of the Psychosis Incident Cohort Outcome Study (PICOS), a multisite naturalistic research conducted in the Veneto Region (Italy) on FEP patients in a 4.6 million inhabitants catchment area. A comprehensive set of standardized measures was used, including ad hoc schedules to collect information on referrals to psychiatric services and on pharmacological and psycho-social treatments according to a multiwave follow-up design (1-, 2- and 5 years).
Three hundred and ninety-seven FEP patients were assessed at BL, 286 at 1 year, 233 at 2 years and 205 at 5 years. 47.4% of patients were helped to seek care by a relative and more than one half entered the treatment route through an emergency access. Regarding the interventions received, 96% of patients had been prescribed neuroleptics and atypical were the most prescribed class (66.9%). Only half received a psychosocial intervention during the first year and this percentage progressively decreased at each FU.
Findings highlight discrepancies between interventions provided by CMHS and the best treatment options recommended by guidelines, suggesting the need to implement specific initiatives aiming to close the gap between research and clinical practice.