Friday Factoids: Challenges in Serving Rural Areas

Mental health disorders cause more disability and suffering in rural areas of our country. The presence of high rates of depression, domestic violence and child abuse creates increased risk for behavioral health issues. In addition, rural areas have higher rates of abuse of alcohol, tobacco, opiates, meth, inhalants, marijuana and cocaine. Suicide attempts and deaths by suicide occur more often in rural settings, with the rate of deaths by suicide running as much as 300% higher than an equivalent urban sample in some areas. Reasons for these disparities are certainly complex, but can be summarized under three primary categories: accessibility of mental health treatment, availability of services, and the acceptability of receiving services in rural culture.

 

Accessibility to services is a complex problem that rural health providers are attempting to address. Rural residents are likely to live further apart from one another, further away from services, and have less access to transportation. Telehealth is one recent technique being used to address some of these issues but it must be considered that due to the higher poverty levels in rural areas, some people may not have access to the technology required to receive telehealth in their home. The prevalent rates of domestic violence could provide a significant barrier for the use of telehealth in such situations. Many community mental health agencies provide i- school services in order to overcome some accessibility problems. Additionally, some rural mental health centers are creating “hubs” for telehealth services, but continue to struggle with transportation to get patients in need to these hubs for sessions.

 

The availability of services is limited in rural areas. A major problem in service provision is a relatively low number of doctoral level psychologists, coupled with high turn-over rates for any degreed professional attempting to practice in rural areas. Structured treatment locations are even more limited. Treatment centers for substance abuse or inpatient mental health can frequently be 1-4 hour commutes each way, and the lack of the availability of services closer to home may create an unbearable financial hardship due to time away from work, transportation costs, and childcare. Additionally, rural residents may have been aware of their behavioral health difficulties but unable or unwilling to access far away services until a crisis has occurred. This same pattern exists in accessing medical services as well, but less stigma is present in seeking medical versus psychological help. As such, treatment facilities that have a rural catchment area tend to have higher levels of acuity than urban centers, and thus face working with more urgent and challenging patients and conditions with minimal resources.

 

Finally, as mentioned, there is a lower rate of acceptability of mental health services by many rural people. While there have been recent gains made in decreasing mental health stigma, rural areas lag behind urban environments in understanding and accepting mental health issues.

 

A potential solution to some of these troubling difficulties may be integrated health clinics. Since medical services are more socially acceptable to rural residents, why not address accessibility and stigma by providing medical and mental health services under one roof? This lessens the patient’s anxiety about being identified by others within their community as receiving mental health services. Also, since medical and mental health issues interact and tend to exacerbate one another, approaching patients more holistically may serve to decrease both mental health and medical crises, and reduce overall acuity levels.

 

An additional hurdle is that many clinicians lack training in rural cultural competencies. Creative ways of working in rural communities are needed at graduate, practicum, and internship levels—and solutions may vary from community to community, needing specific approaches. Community mental health models that work well in urban environments may not be feasible in rural areas, so clinicians need to take a “troubleshooting” approach in the rural area they wish to serve.

 

Solutions to the barriers to mental health care in rural areas can be identified and developed. Most importantly, all mental health services need to be tailored to the culture and way of life of the rural area being served.

 

References
Smalley, K. B., Rainer, J., & Warren, J. (2012). Rural Mental Health : Issues, Policies, and Best Practices. New York: Springer Publishing Company

 

Rain Blohm, MS
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

 

Friday Factoids: The Search for Causation of Autism Spectrum Disorder

 

With the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) on the rise, professionals and parents from all walks of life have been increasingly steadfast and diligent in their research and support for families and people contending with these issues. One of their goals is to find a suitable treatment for the millions who currently experience difficulties, that would greatly reduce or permanently eliminate symptoms of the often debilitating disorder. Another main focus for many is the development of preventative guidelines or an inoculation that would drastically reduce the number of sufferers who develop ASD.

 

To achieve any of these goals, it is imperative that we understand the root cause(s) of ASD. Scientist and medical professionals have been testing hypothesis after hypothesis but have yet to discover the origin of the disorder. Medical Science and families were hopeful when the announcement was made that the prevalence of ASD in the Amish Community was 0%. Unfortunately, we now know this information is inaccurate, but not all hope has been lost. Research data obtained from 1899 Amish children ages 3-21 years was collected. The results proved that the disease does in fact exist in the Amish population at the rate of approximately 1 in 271 children. This is a significantly reduced rate when associated with the national average of 1 in 68 children today in the U.S. It’s a comparison of .0037% to .0147% but what does that mean for explorations of causation?

 

Research into how Amish Communities differ from everyday society is currently being conducted. The lack of radiation, radio waves, and gamma waves is being considered, as well as a comparison of the amount of artificial ingredients, preservatives and hormones added to the processed, manufactured foods ingested by most Americans. Another area being looked at is the number of chemicals we are subjected to through use of common household products including shampoos, household cleaners and pesticides. Since the Amish have no religious objections to vaccines, with many getting them as recommended by the CDC guidelines, inoculations can be ruled out. Future research should test for ASD in remote populations. A comparison can then be made with the percentage of incidence with the data obtained from the Amish Community in hopes of finding a correlation or pattern.

 

Reference
Reynolds, A. (n.d.). Combating Autism from Within: Guess what? The Amish vaccinate! Retrieved September 20, 2015, from http://combatingautismfromwithin.blogspot.com/2008/01/guess-what-amish-vaccinate.html

 

Robinson, J., Nations, L., Suslowitz, N., Curraco, M., Haines, J., & Vance, M. (2010, May 22). Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish. Lecture presented at International Meeting for Autism Reseach in Franklin Hall B Level 4 (Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, PA.

 

Crystal K. Bray, BS
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

What is being in “Recovery”?

I talk a lot about “recovery” as a Peer Support Specialist, as do many in our place of work.  We have a “Recovery Mall,” but defining recovery is difficult.  It means so many different things to different people.  Each individual has his or her own goals.  My recovery may seem too simplistic or too grandiose.  It also depends on from what we are recovering.  What does that even mean?

 

The working definition from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) is at the bottom of my email messages: “Recovery is a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life, and strive to reach their full potential.” No matter what organization, governmental or grassroots, the definition has similarities.  The running theme is that the person is able to control his or her own life.  He or she takes charge of their own wellness and reaches toward goals.  It is a process though, not a clear destination that can just end.  It’s also definitely not a straight line from point a to b.  To borrow from the Beatles, “It’s a long and winding road.”

 

Recovery is a journey for which each of us must arrange our own transportation.  We can’t have our hands held the entire way.  At some point, it is a decision.  Once a spark of hope is ignited, a person goes from being constantly helped, to taking charge of their life.  That was my recovery point.  I spent years being helped; I went to my doctors and dwelled on my illnesses.  I identified so strongly with my illnesses, that my identity was lost.  Once I decided to cross over from being a consumer of services, to providing services, I could say that I believed I was on the road to recovery from my mental illnesses.  The road never ends though.

 

Igniting that spark of hope is the premise of Peer Support.  That is what hundreds across the state, mostly in a volunteer role, are trying to do for others.   Peer Support is now known as an essential tool in the recovery process.

 

Rebecca Coursey, KPS
Peer Support Specialist

 

“Recovery is a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life, and strive to reach their full potential.”     SAMHSA

Friday Factoids: Comparative Psychology

According the Oxford Dictionary, psychology is “the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context,” Many professionals in the field today would generally provide the same roundabout information if asked. However, with the inclusion of Comparative Psychology, many dictionary and professional definitions will have to be updated.

 

Comparative Psychology is the relatively new branch of psychology that focuses mostly on the study of purposes and perceptions of animal behavior, or non-human behavior, which is causing all sorts of controversy.  Its validity is a hot button topic amongst professionals in both psychology and veterinary medicine as well as the layman dog owner. Some mental health professionals fear that acknowledging or including Comparative psychology as an accepted branch would harm the forward progress and positive public perception that they, and those before them, have fought so diligently to obtain. Others, however, argue that as with the evolution of all social and physical sciences, psychology too must grow and change when new facts come to light so as to continue to be relevant and beneficial to those it serves.

 

The number of practicing Comparative Psychologists in the U.S. is extremely low but each up-coming semester hosts the potential to graduate more to the field. It is growing in popularity. To date, this writer was not able to locate any state or federally mandated list of requirements for individuals practicing as Comparative Psychologists. Therefore, it is very important that consumers be aware of the actual degree held by the individual of whom they seek these services. Any degree or field of study outside of a PhD./PsyD. in Animal Behavior or Comparative Psychology would be seriously suspect and should be questioned since the field is still in its adolescent years with a limited number of qualified, practicing professional.

 

References

Definition of psychology in English:. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/psychology

 

Hauber, M. (n.d.). Animal Behavior and Comparative Psychology. Retrieved September 14, 2015, from http://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Psychology/Training-Areas/Animal-Behavior-and-Comparative-Psychology

 

ISCP. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from http://comparativepsychology.org/index.html

 

Crystal K. Bray, B.S.
WKPIC Doctoral Intern

Article Review: Impact of Person-Centered Planning and Collaborative Documentation on Treatment Adherence (Stanhope, Ingoglia, Schmelter, & Marcus, 2013)

Purpose
Mental health providers are faced with the challenges of completing quality documentation on time, building a therapeutic alliance, and managing a client’s treatment compliance. Stanhope, Ingoglia, Schmelter, and Marcus (2013) examined the impact of person-centered planning and collaborative documentation on service engagement and medication adherence within community mental health centers (CMHC). As part of person-centered planning, collaborative documentation is being explore as a tool that works to benefit the agencies and clients by ensuring treatment services appropriately reflect the client’s values and preferences and that documentation is completed in a timely manner.

 

Background
Stanhope, Ingoglia, Schmelter, and Marcus (2013) emphasized there are challenges clinicians experience with lack of engagement in mental health services among people with a mental illness. Contributing factors to disengagement from services include mistrust in the mental health system, poor alliances with providers, a perception that providers are not listening to them, and inadequate opportunities to make decisions and collaborate in treatment. Mental health agencies are starting to place an emphasis on transparency and utilizing a collaborative approach to documentation so that it represents a true reflection of the treatment session.

 

Historically, clinicians have viewed documentation as “the enemy” because it competes with time spent with clients and many rely on “no-show” appointments to complete paperwork. Collaborative documentation can be used as a clinical tool in completing assessments, treatment plans, and progress notes together with clients during the session. This method offers clients with the opportunity to share their input and perception on services that were provided. Additionally, it allows clients and clinicians to explore important issues, clarify any misunderstandings, and focus on progress.

 

According to the researchers, person-centered planning is defined as “a highly individual comprehensive approach to assessment and services.” This treatment approach allows providers to collaborate with clients to develop customized treatment plans that identify life goals and potential barriers. Person-centered care is a structured way of organizing treatment that focus on making continuous use of strengths-based assessment strategies, recognizing appropriate supports, and empowering clients to be active participants. During this study, researchers looked to determine whether person-centered care planning combined with collaborative documentation improved service engagement and medication adherence among clients at ten geographically diverse community mental health centers (CMHCs).

 

 

Methodology
This study was a randomized controlled trial of person-centered care planning with collaborative documentation among clients receiving services at ten CMHCs. Five CMHCs were randomly assigned to the experimental condition, which provided training in person-centered planning and collaborative documentation to agency clinicians. The five CMHCs in the control condition provided treatment as usual. The study period was 11 months (May 2009 to March 2010).

 

For clients to be eligible for this study, participants were required to be aged 18 or older, have had one or more psychiatric hospitalizations or two or more psychiatric emergency room visits in the past year, have a DSM-IV axis I diagnosis, and meet at least two functional criteria of severe mental illness. Altogether, 177 clients at the CMHCs in the experimental condition and 190 clients at the CMHCs in the control condition participated.

 

The first aim of this study was to compare changes in the overall rate of clinician-reported medication adherence between clients in the experimental CMHCs and clients in the CMHCs in the control group. The provider who was best able to determine a client’s medication adherence rated adherence (yes or no) on a monthly basis for 11 months. For the second aim, client-level analyses were conducted separately for CMHCs in the experimental and control groups to examine whether the odds of medication adherence changed over time. Finally, logistic regression models, including a random effect for site, were run to calculate the effect of the intervention on the odds of an appointment no-show. The models used data received from each CMHC on the total number of appointment no-shows and the total number of appointments.

 

Conclusion
Results indicate the intervention had a positive impact on medication adherence over time. Medication adherence at CMHCs in the experimental condition increased by 2% per month over the 11-month period (B=.022, p≤.01). The control condition showed no significant change in rate of medication adherence (B=.004, p=.25), and by the end of the study, the rate of medication adherence for the control condition was lower than for the experimental condition.

 

In the client-level analyses, the odds of medication adherence over 11 months increased by 25% among clients in the experimental condition but by only 1% among clients in the control condition. An intervention effect generally was seen across client-level characteristics. Medication adherence over the 11-month study among clients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorders was significantly more improved at CMHCs in the experimental group.

 

Overall, the study found that person-centered planning and collaborative documentation were associated with greater engagement in services (a decrease in no-shows) and higher rates of medication adherence. Therefore, the study findings supported the theory that if clients have greater control over their treatment and services are genuinely oriented toward their individual goals, clients will be more engaged with services and more compliant with medication.

 

 

References
Stanhope, V., Ingoglia, C., Schmelter, B., & Marcus, S. (2013). Impact of Person-Centered Planning and Collaborative Documentation on Treatment Adherence

Psychiatric Services, 64 (1), 76–79.

 

 

Jonathan Torres, M.S.

WKPIC Doctoral Intern