|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2021 17:27:40 GMT
Mutual Help Groups as an Empowerment Tool July 17, 2021 From Mad in Brasil: The article entitled Psychoeducation and Problem Solving Therapy as an integrative model of mutual help groups for people with severe mental disorders: a Brazilian report describes a case study on a Peer Support Program, called “Entrelaços”, carried out at the Institute of Psychiatry at UFRJ. Between 2011 and 2019, 246 people including users and their families participated in eight seminars followed by problem solving groups in a cycle that lasted 18 months. Of the participants who completed the seminars, 90% decided to create 7 community self-help groups regardless of technique and institution. The group has served more than 214 families and has organized scientific, social and anti-stigma events, expanding its social support network and demonstrating empowerment. Read in Portuguese or google translation in English. www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/mutual-help-groups-empowerment-tool/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2021 17:29:52 GMT
Discomfort Is the New Comfort Zone www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/discomfort-new-comfort-zone/“Getting out of your comfort zone” is so in these days. All the cool successful kids are doing it…or at least telling anyone who wants to know how to find “success” to do it, too. I haven’t heard a single interview in the last two years with someone the culture has deemed successful that doesn’t contain the phrase “get out of your comfort zone” in some form. Most have gone so far as to claim that success is actually impossible if you don’t leave your comfort zone. The first problem with this argument is that “success” is never clearly defined in any of these interviews— nor in blog posts about success, nor in self-help books or workshops or anything purporting to help people become successful. Much of the media around success states outright that “only you, the reader/listener/workshop participant/person who desires success and is thus defining yourself as unsuccessful in some way can define success for yourself.” This is a copout: by default, “successful” in this culture means wealthy. Absurdly wealthy, such that you can give away half, 75%, or even 90% of your income and still afford a vacation home, a yacht, and a staff of personal assistants to ensure you don’t have to actually do anything for yourself. We all know this; we all feel it. We can look up synonyms of success all we want—achievement, attainment, realization, triumph, victory, accomplishment—but do any of those ring true to what the culture actually portrays as successful? We can say success means whatever you want it to mean, but no one in mainstream culture would buy it if you defined success as living friendless in destitution under a bridge. They would criminalize your behavior and label you mentally ill and then maybe some charitable organization or guilt-ridden soul would offer to help you change your situation. Success in mainstream American culture means rich—and, if you don’t want to be totally vilified by a large portion of the population, generously philanthropic. Of course, you get to choose what you will save humanity from, and the best part is that you don’t have to ask those whose savior you decree yourself to be how they might define help. We’re not about concrete definitions here, anyway. The second problem is that “comfort zone” is also not defined. This might be because a comfort zone is going to differ by individual, and so offering any more concrete definition is both alienating and unnecessary. Paradoxically, another reason why no one offers a more specific definition of comfort zone is because it seems, on its face to be obvious: The comfort zone is where you feel comfortable. Some other words Microsoft Word’s thesaurus suggests for “comfortable” are “contented,” “relaxed,” “calm,” “snug,” “happy,” “easy” and “restful.” So, basically anytime you are in the parasympathetic state—the one necessary for healthy digestion, healing sleep, mental and emotional well-being, hormonal balancing, and all kinds of other imperative functions of the body—you are in your comfort zone and therefore, success is impossible. Hopefully, you’re beginning to see the problems here. They go beyond fuzzy definitions: the fact that comfort zone and success are so vaguely defined makes the relationship between them seem like an inverse one: the more often you’re in your comfort zone, the less you can hope for success. But what if you define success as happiness? Remember that one of the synonyms for comfortable is happy. According to the people who are successful enough to have household name recognition, the people we are trained from a very young age to want to be like, you can’t be in your comfort zone happy and successful at the same time. Might this be why only 15% of Americans like their jobs? Given all the synonym talk above, it might be interesting to see what other combinations we could come up with: You can’t be restful and rich; you can’t be calm and accomplished; and so on. Admittedly, those ring true, at least according to the stereotypes out there. They seem a little Protestant-work-ethic-y, emphasizing the connection between hard work and wealth you’d find in the Bible’s Book of Proverbs. (Proverbs, incidentally, also strongly instructs people not to clamor after riches, a sentiment that is echoed many other places in Scripture, even as Proverbs exhorts people to make sure they provide for themselves so that they will be “rewarded” with riches.) Whatever the case, the requirement that one must step outside their comfort zone if one wants to achieve success is troubling, and it’s time to stop letting it go unquestioned. The idea that constant discomfort is somehow good for us is just a repackaged form of the adage “no pain, no gain.” It’s not too different from the harmful stereotype that, to be creative in any meaningful way, you have to be “depressed” or “mad,” or the idea that you can’t know light unless/until you’ve known darkness. Such “choices” are false dichotomies that rely on undefined terms, sometimes of things that don’t actually exist. (What is “depression,” anyway? What is “insanity?” Who gets to decide?) They also perpetuate the link between pain and greatness. It’s not surprising that a society that gives kudos to people for going without the sleep, human connection, and time off that they need to be well would continue to rephrase the equation conflation of suffering with success. Why is the culture so committed to suffering as the gatekeeper of success? I don’t see anything inherently logical about the idea that you can’t be truly creative if you’ve never suffered or that you can’t know joy unless you’ve known sorrow. These ideas and others like them are stated without explanation, as if they are self-evident, just like the idea that you have to get out of your comfort zone if you want to succeed—when what’s really happened is simply that we’ve heard them repeated so many times that we mistake familiarity for truth. But isn’t it just as logical to say that people don’t perform as well if they’re constantly under unhealthy levels of stress? I’m not claiming that remaining in your comfort zone is actually the way to success, but the standard American way of life has actually taught us to seek comfort and convenience and to pathologize pain through its constant advertising of other people’s access to comfort and convenience…. and of how you’re doing something wrong if things in your life are hard/inconvenient/a struggle (and all you need is this product or service! Just click here!). The ease with which many, more privileged people obtain their needs and wants probably does get in the way of their own personal growth. But that’s not an across-the-board fact, so stating things like “There is no growth without challenge/difficulty” or “You cannot become who you’re meant to be without adversity” need more nuance and qualification. If I’m too uncomfortable physically, emotionally, or relationally, I withdraw, shut down, or dissociate from my body. I do not grow or become stronger. I need a certain amount of physical comfort before I can concentrate on writing, for example. But also, after I get started on a new piece (this is always the hardest part for me), I am in that oh-so-elusive state of flow where I’m not being challenged or out of my comfort zone at all (or if I am, I’m not aware of it). I have forgotten all else besides giving myself over to the writing process, to the trek through the verbal peaks and valleys as I work through a first draft and take in the view from whatever mountain that particular piece asked me to climb. But there is no pain in climbing the mountain. There often is no pain in not climbing the mountain, either. I don’t need pain to be a good writer. I don’t need inspiration from the muse, either. Writing such as I do requires that I sit down at the foot of each mountain and meet whatever goal I had set for myself that day or week. There is no discomfort; there is even joy. And I would say that my writing has been improving overall despite my lack of discomfort. Of course, this is one simple and personal example. But the claim is that success doesn’t happen without leaving your comfort zone. I haven’t had all the success that I want to have as a writer (and I’m certainly not wealthy), but I don’t think it’s because I haven’t left my comfort zone enough. I think meeting my goals will be a matter of timing, persistence, and continually working on my craft. None of these require me to leave my comfort zone for prolonged periods of time and, by many definitions— including my own— I am already successful as a writer. I worry that hammering on the idea that success demands constant discomfort has the same effect that repeating over and over again that “relationships are hard/take work” does on relationships. That is, people might not be staying in abusive relationships so long if they had a more nuanced understanding of what “work” and “hard” mean. If “success” requires one to leave their “comfort zone,” is it in order to go out and get it? How often and for how long? How bad does the discomfort have to be? Who gets to decide? I know psychiatrists are happy to capitalize on manufactured misery however it happens, and I think championing discomfort as a prerequisite for success is one way to manufacture more misery, albeit paradoxically. “To be happy, you have to be miserable” might as well be what advocates of getting out of your comfort zone to achieve success say instead. All they’re doing is creating more faithful customers for the psychiatry and psychology industries, which depend on renewable sources of misery to sustain their business models. Not only does the advice that success requires getting out of your comfort zone imply that one cannot be happy while doing hard work, thereby making work onerous and indirectly serving psychiatry’s agenda of providing just enough “relief” to be seen as helpful while prolonging their consumers’ pain as long as possible. But it also allows nearly every successful person to gaslight those who ask about their success and how they got it. One reason people desire success is because they believe it will make them happy; now, they’re told to force themselves into potentially giving up happiness, even as they work toward happiness? I know this one. I’ve done something like it my whole life. I’ve forced and driven and striven my way through most of my tasks every day, pushing myself to do all of these things I do not want to do in the name of having the life I want. How does that make sense? “Paying one’s dues” comes to mind as a possible rejoinder, but this would be paying your dues and then heading straight to the back of the line every time. Just as something cannot arise from nothing, how can comfort arise from constant discomfort? All of this is a bit exaggerated, perhaps. But the absurdity just highlights the insidious nature of the advice. On the surface, “If you want to be successful, you need to get out of your comfort zone” sounds like logical, sound advice. We’ve all probably heard this so often that we don’t give it much thought. It’s only when we zoom in that we can really see some of its problems and why we need to be careful about taking this ubiquitous form of life coaching seriously. *** Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 22, 2021 21:40:08 GMT
Around the Web, from The BMJ: “Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t that surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported. The Cochrane Collaboration, which purveys ‘trusted information,’ has now taken a step in that direction. . . . Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond. It may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary.” Time to Assume That Health Research Is Fraudulent Until Proven Otherwise? July 22, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/time-assume-health-research-fraudulent-proven-otherwise/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2021 18:44:24 GMT
An original article (soon to be) published in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing explores the development, current status, and future trajectory of lived experience work in mental health. Following an overview of the current status of lived experience professionalization in the mental health field, the researchers discuss the impact of the trend toward professionalization. “Debate surrounding professionalization highlights the unique concerns of work that is fundamentally centered on personal experience and relationships trying to find credibility within a system that prioritizes formalized knowledge,” writes the researchers, led by Helena Roennfeldt, a psychiatric nurse and researcher at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. How Does Professionalization Impact Lived Experience Work in Mental Health?Researchers examine the benefits and drawbacks of the move toward professionalizing lived experience work in mental health settings. www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/professionalization-impact-lived-experience-work-mental-health/Original Article Skin in the game: The professionalization of lived experience roles in mental healthHelena Roennfeldt MSW, Louise Byrne PhD First published: 17 June 2021 doi.org/10.1111/inm.12898onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/inm.12898Abstract The lived experience workforce has moved from being a grassroots support and activist movement to become the fastest growing workforce within mental health. As lived experience work becomes assimilated within mainstream mental health service delivery, it faces mounting pressure to become more professionalized. Professionalization has evoked both optimism and fear, with diverging views within the lived experience workforce. In this paper, an assessment of the existing professionalization of the lived experience workforce is undertaken by drawing on theoretical positions and indices of what constitutes a profession. The arguments for and against professionalization are explored to identify the risks, benefits, and considerations for the lived experience workforce. The drive for professionalization has largely occurred due to the clinically focused mental health systems’ valuing of professional identity. The argument in favour of professionalization is motivated by a need for credibility within the views of that system, as well as greater regulation of the workforce. However, tensions are acknowledged with concerns that professionalization to appeal to the clinically focused system may lead to erosion of the values and uniqueness of lived experience work and nullify its effectiveness as an alternative and complementary role. Given mental health nurses are increasingly colleagues and often line managers of lived experience workers, it is important at this stage of lived experience workforce development that mental health nurses understand and are able to advocate for lived experience roles as a distinct professional discipline to help avoid the risks of co-option to more dominant clinical practice.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 24, 2021 17:50:08 GMT
A recent paper published in the Journal of Mental Health examines the frequency of clinical mental health data in the UK, including information related to social determinants of health, as well as phenomenological (symptom-focused) reports. This clinical data is based on codes from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) and comes from the UK NHS Trust electronic database. The authors, including British clinical psychologist Peter Kinderman, found that both social determinants of health and phenomenological codes were rarely used in clinical reporting, despite their known prevalence among service users. “In 2012, a leading group of social psychiatrists argued that mental health care needed to reform, to take better account of social determinants. Similarly, the United Nations Special Rapporteur Dr. Dainius Puras argued that mental health problems are strongly linked to early childhood adversities, inequalities, and abuse, and argued for a ‘revolution’ in mental health care; a shift in focus from ‘treatment’ towards a more fundamental social basis for care. These kinds of visions for care take, as their first step, the recognition and recording of these social determinants,” write Kinderman and co-authors. Why not Diagnose Social Conditions Instead of Individual Symptoms?A new analysis of mental health data in the UK finds that clinicians rarely use ICD codes related to social determinants. By Micah Ingle, MA -July 24, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/not-diagnose-social-conditions-instead-individual-symptoms/Minimal use of ICD social determinant or phenomenological codes in mental health care recordsPeter KindermanORCID Icon,Kate AllsoppORCID Icon,Rosie Zero,Fritz Handerer &Sara Tai Received 23 Sep 2019, Accepted 28 Jun 2021, Published online: 15 Jul 2021 Download citation doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2021.1952944www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638237.2021.1952944
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 27, 2021 19:45:15 GMT
A recent article, published by Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, is the first to date to investigate how service users across the psychotic illness spectrum perceive recovery 20 years after their first-episode psychosis (FEP). Through qualitative interviews with 10 participants who met the criteria for “full clinical recovery” and 10 participants who did not meet the criteria for “full recovery,” the researchers explored areas of agreement and divergence between these groups. The authors, led by Donal O’Keefe of the DETECT program in Dublin, aimed to illuminate the differences in the meaning of personal recovery for those in mid to later life. They write: “Research exploring early-phase FEP recovery has underscored service users’ desire for equality, societal value, and social inclusion. Our study adds nuance to this knowledge by highlighting how in mid-later life this drive for egalitarianism is balanced against an awareness of the inequity that psychosis brings. Nonetheless, personal recovery for participants meant reclaiming citizenship by being seen by others as responsible, human, and warranting power, trust, and respect in relationships.” Study Examines Perspectives on Psychosis Recovery 20 Years Later Interviews with service users 20 years after first-episode psychosis shed light on how to improve recovery-oriented mental health services. By Madison Natarajan, MS -July 27, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/study-examines-perspectives-psychosis-recovery-20-years-later/Original Paper Open Access Published: 18 June 2021 A qualitative study exploring personal recovery meaning and the potential influence of clinical recovery status on this meaning 20 years after a first-episode psychosis Donal O’Keeffe, Ann Sheridan, Aine Kelly, Roisin Doyle, Kevin Madigan, Elizabeth Lawlor & Mary Clarke Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (2021) link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-021-02121-wAbstract Purpose Long-term data on recovery conceptualisation in psychotic illness are needed to support mental health services to organise themselves according to recovery-oriented frameworks. To our knowledge, no previous research has investigated how first-episode psychosis (FEP) service users (sampled across psychotic illness type) perceive recovery beyond 5 years after diagnosis. We aimed to explore personal recovery meaning with individuals 20 years after their FEP and examine the potential influence of clinical recovery status on how they defined recovery (i.e. personal recovery).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 29, 2021 19:54:45 GMT
The journal Health Expectations recently published research by Finnish researchers Johanna Cresswell-Smith and colleagues, who studied how psychiatric rehospitalization impacted service users’ daily lives. They aim to reduce rehospitalization by improving patient-centered care. According to the research team: “Person-centered perspectives are increasingly being incorporated into different areas of health and can be considered to be a distinctive feature of a recovery-oriented approach… Taking the whole person into account lies at the base of these approaches, and collaborative action is needed, which acknowledges the multidimensionality of mental health and the impact of social determinants and community action.” Preventing Psychiatric Rehospitalization with Person-Centered Care By listening to service users, researchers aim to prevent psychiatric rehospitalization and improve patient-centered approaches to recovery. By José G. Luiggi-Hernández -July 29, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/preventing-psychiatric-rehospitalization-person-centered-care/‘If we would change things outside we wouldn’t even need to go in…’ supporting recovery via community-based actions: A focus group study on psychiatric rehospitalization Johanna Cresswell-Smith MSc, Valeria Donisi PhD, Laura Rabbi MS, Raluca Sfetcu PhD, Lilijana Šprah PhD, Christa Straßmayr Mag., Kristian Wahlbeck PhD, MD, Marian Ådnanes PhD First published: 09 September 2020 doi.org/10.1111/hex.13125onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.13125Abstract Background Psychiatric rehospitalization is a complex phenomenon in need of more person-centred approaches. The current paper aimed to explore how community-based actions and daily life influence mental health and rehospitalization. Design, setting and participants The qualitative study included focus group data from six European countries including 59 participants. Data were thematically analysed following an inductive approach deriving themes and subthemes in relation to facilitators and barriers to mental health. Results Barriers consisted of subthemes (financial difficulty, challenging family circumstances and stigma), and facilitators consisted of three subthemes (complementing services, signposting and recovery). The recovery subtheme consisted of a further five categories (family and friends, work and recreation, hope, using mental health experience and meaning). Discussion Barriers to mental health largely related to social determinants of mental health, which may also have implications for psychiatric rehospitalization. Facilitators included community-based actions and aspects of daily life with ties to personal recovery. By articulating the value of these facilitators, we highlight benefits of a person-centred and recovery-focused approach also within the context of psychiatric rehospitalization. Conclusions This paper portrays how person-centred approaches and day-to-day community actions may impact psychiatric rehospitalization via barriers and facilitators, acknowledging the social determinants of mental health and personal recovery. Patient or public contribution The current study included participants with experience of psychiatric rehospitalization from six different European countries. Furthermore, transcripts were read by several of the focus group participants, and a service user representative participated in the entire research process in the original study.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 1, 2021 8:36:54 GMT
How I Learned the Social and Environmental Causes of Madness By Robert Murphy -July 31, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/causes-madness/My first encounter with mental illness was when I was studying for ‘A’ levels, aged 17. My great friend, who was a brilliant sportsman and scholar, was hospitalised in the psychiatric unit of the local general hospital, and was diagnosed with hypomania. On the Friday after badminton school team practice, when we had gone to our lockers in the prefects’ room, I sensed there was something different about his state of mind, and looked at him with concern, and questioningly. He said ‘don’t worry, I’m just going mad!’ We went our separate ways for the weekend, though I was concerned, and thought I must speak with him more on the Monday. That weekend he went to a party and ended up lying in the snow on the moors, ‘being’ Christ and ‘high,’ and was admitted informally into the hospital.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2021 10:04:38 GMT
Looking Beyond Self-Help to Understand Resilience: An Interview with Michael Ungar By Ayurdhi Dhar, PhD -July 28, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/07/looking-beyond-self-help-understand-resilience-interview-michael-ungar/Michael Ungar is the founder and director of the Resilience Research Centre at Dalhousie University in Canada. He is also a family therapist and professor of social work. He has received numerous awards, such as the Canadian Association of Social Workers National Distinguished Service Award (2012), and has authored around 15 books and over 200 peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Ungar’s work is globally recognized and centers on community trauma and community resilience. In particular, his work explores resilience among marginalized children and families, especially those involved with child welfare and mental health services, refugees, and immigrant youth. His research is spread across continents and challenges our traditional notions of trauma and resilience. Analyzing people’s risks and available resources, he scrutinizes simplistic ideas of individual perseverance and grit in the face of trauma. Instead, he implicates the role of context, circumstances, and ill-suited services in contributing to people’s psychological suffering.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2021 10:06:33 GMT
FDA’s “Accelerated Approval” Process Leaves Ineffective Drugs on the Market BMJ investigation: Almost half (112) of the drugs approved this way don't have evidence for benefit, but only 16 drugs have ever been withdrawn. By Peter Simons -August 2, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/08/fda-accelerated-approval/An investigative report by Elisabeth Mahase at The BMJ has found that the US FDA’s controversial “accelerated approval” process is “plagued by missing efficacy data and questionable evidence.” This process allows drugs to be sold to consumers without hard evidence that they will help. Mahase writes, “Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited, to the detriment of patients—who may be given a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm.” Proponents of the accelerated approval pathway say that it still requires drug manufacturers/marketers to conduct further tests, and that if they fail to conduct the tests or find the drug doesn’t work, the FDA will withdraw its approval. But of the 253 drugs that have been approved using this pathway since its conception in 1992, almost half (112) have not been found to be effective—and only 16 drugs have ever been withdrawn. In many cases, the drug manufacturers did not even conduct further tests, but the FDA rarely—if ever—enforces this requirement. For instance, Midodrine hydrochloride (Proamatine) has been on the market for 25 years, but the drug manufacturer never conducted the post-approval tests. Likewise, Mafenide acetate (Sulfamylon) has been on the market for 23 years without post-approval tests. According to Mylan, the company behind that drug, they are still discussing potential study designs with the FDA. The FDA’s accelerated approval process is in the news again because of the recent controversial approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm). The two trials of the drug were terminated early because it was found to be ineffective and associated with brain bleeding. But the FDA worked with drugmaker Biogen to find new ways to analyze the data, and years later, they presented evidence that in one of the trials, a small subgroup of patients may have benefited. The FDA’s advisory board rejected this evidence, voting 10-0 (with 1 “uncertain”) against approving the drug. But the FDA approved the drug anyway. Three members of the advisory board resigned in protest, and one of them called it “the worst drug approval decision in recent U.S. history.” Biogen now has nine years to complete post-approval studies to demonstrate aducanumab’s effectiveness—but in the meantime, a drug that did so poorly on its outcomes that they terminated the studies early is being sold for $56,000 per person per year. The FDA argued that its approval of aducanumab was justified because the drug did work on a “surrogate endpoint” by decreasing amyloid plaques, which are theorized to be involved in Alzheimer’s disease. So, even though the drug did not improve actual clinical outcomes, the FDA suggested that it at least has the potential to help. But these surrogate endpoints are often not associated with any meaningful form of improvement. For instance, many drugs that attack amyloids have previously failed to make any impact on Alzheimer’s disease—and many experts don’t think aducanumab will be any different. Mahase writes that Biogen may choose to use that same endpoint for their new post-approval study—demonstrating that while the drug doesn’t improve clinical outcomes, it reduces amyloid plaques—and the FDA could accept that as proof that the drug works. The experts Mahase spoke to suggested that the FDA should start enforcing its rules about withdrawing approval for drugs that aren’t confirmed to be effective. Additionally, the FDA should require designs for confirmatory post-approval studies before the drug is allowed to be marketed. The experts agreed, however, that the accelerated approval pathway may still be helpful in getting beneficial medications to patients. *** Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2021 10:07:58 GMT
FDA’s “Accelerated Approval” Process Leaves Ineffective Drugs on the Market BMJ investigation: Almost half (112) of the drugs approved this way don't have evidence for benefit, but only 16 drugs have ever been withdrawn. By Peter Simons -August 2, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/08/fda-accelerated-approval/An investigative report by Elisabeth Mahase at The BMJ has found that the US FDA’s controversial “accelerated approval” process is “plagued by missing efficacy data and questionable evidence.” This process allows drugs to be sold to consumers without hard evidence that they will help. www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9K27HvhDxA
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 19, 2021 16:55:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2021 16:24:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 29, 2021 16:30:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 13, 2021 10:33:59 GMT
LETTER: Antidepressant Withdrawal: why has it been ignored for so long? By MITUK admin -03/09/2021 www.madintheuk.com/2021/09/letter-antidepressant-withdrawal-why-has-it-been-ignored-for-so-long/Open Dialogue Approaches Involve Families in Mental Health Recovery Collaboration between families, providers, and clients in treatment has been shown to be beneficial to the recovery process. By Ashley Bobak, MS -September 13, 2021 www.madinamerica.com/2021/09/open-dialogue-approaches-involve-families-mental-health-recovery/Original Paper Published: 27 August 2021 “It Makes us Realize that We Have Been Heard”: Experiences with Open Dialogue in Vermont Ana Carolina Florence, Gerald Jordan, Silvio Yasui, Daniela Ravelli Cabrini & Larry Davidson link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11126-021-09948-1Abstract The Open Dialogue approach was developed in Finland as a form of psychotherapy and a way to organize mental health systems. Open Dialogue has drawn global interest leading to adaptations worldwide, including in Vermont-US where it is called Collaborative Network Approach. Our study aimed to investigate the experiences of families who received Collaborative Network Approach in two agencies in Vermont. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 persons receiving services. Seven themes emerged: 1) network focus, 2) decision-making, 3) structure of care, 4) use of reflections, 5) medications, 6) hospitalizations, 7) challenges. Our study provides evidence that CNA is well-received, appreciated, and for many people an empowering form of mental health care. The findings suggest that elements of Open Dialogue are highly consistent with the vision for recovery-oriented care, in that they are flexible, person-centered, encourage processes of negotiation, and highlight the importance of family and social supports in care. Mental Health Crisis Response Teams May Reduce Incarceration Risks New research on police-mental health co-response teams suggests mental health workers can help reduce the short-term risk of incarceration. www.madinamerica.com/2021/09/mental-health-crisis-response-teams-may-reduce-incarceration-risks/Evaluation of a Police–Mental Health Co-response Team Relative to Traditional Police Response in Indianapolis Katie Bailey, M.P.A., Evan M. Lowder, Ph.D., Eric Grommon, Ph.D., Staci Rising, M.S., Bradley R. Ray, Ph.D. Published Online:26 Aug 2021https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.202000864 ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.202000864Abstract Objective: Criminal justice and emergency medical service (EMS) outcomes were compared for individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis who received a response from a co-response team (CRT) or a usual response from the police after a 911 call. Methods: A prospective, quasi-experimental design was used to examine outcomes of a CRT pilot tested in Indianapolis (August–December 2017). Weighted multivariable models examined effects of study condition (CRT group, N=313; usual-response group, N=315) on immediate booking, emergency detention, and subsequent jail bookings and EMS encounters. Sensitivity of outcomes to follow-up by a behavioral health unit (BHU) was also examined. Results: Individuals in the CRT group were less likely than those in the usual-police-response group to be arrested immediately following the 911 incident (odds ratio [OR]=0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.25–0.92) and were more likely to experience any EMS encounter at 6- and 12-month follow-up (OR range=1.71–1.85, p≤0.015 for all). Response type was not associated with jail bookings at 6 or 12 months. Follow-up BHU services did not reduce bookings or EMS encounters. CRT recipients with BHU follow-up were more likely than those without BHU follow-up to have a subsequent EMS contact (OR range=2.35–3.12, p≤0.001 for all). These findings differed by racial group.
|
|