BackgroundAssertive outreach has been established to care for ‘difficult to engage’ patients, yet little is known about how patients experience their disengagement with mainstream services and later engagement with outreach teams.AimsTo explore the views of disengagement and engagement held by patients of assertive outreach teams.MethodIn-depth interviews were conducted with 40 purposefully selected patients and analysed using components of both thematic analysis and grounded theory.ResultsPatients reported a desire to be independent, a poor therapeutic relationship and a loss of control due to medication effects as most important for disengagement. Time and commitment of staff, social support and engagement without a focus on medication, and a partnership model of the therapeutic relationship were most relevant for engagement.ConclusionsThe findings underline the importance of a comprehensive care model, committed staff with sufficient time, and a focus on relationship issues in dealing with ‘ifficultto engage'patients.

People with untreated war-related PTSD have a high risk of still having PTSD a decade after the traumatic event. Their SQOL is relatively low, and they generate considerable care costs. Factors that have been reported as influencing the occurrence of PTSD also appear relevant for recovery from PTSD. Current PTSD may impair SQOL independently of social factors.

BackgroundSocial networks are important for mental health outcomes as they can mobilise resources and help individuals to cope with social stressors. Individuals with psychosis may have specific difficulties in establishing and maintaining social relationships which impacts on their well-being and quality of life. There has been a growing interest in developing social network interventions for patients with psychotic disorders. A systematic literature review was conducted to investigate the size of social networks of patients with psychotic disorders, as well as their friendship networks.MethodsA systematic electronic search was carried out in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases using a combination of search terms relating to ‘social network’, ‘friendship’ and ‘psychotic disorder’.ResultsThe search identified 23 relevant papers. Out of them, 20 reported patient social network size. Four papers reported the mean number of friends in addition to whole network size, while three further papers focused exclusively on the number of friends. Findings varied substantially across the studies, with a weighted mean size of 11.7 individuals for whole social networks and 3.4 individuals for friendship networks. On average, 43.1 % of the whole social network was composed of family members, while friends accounted for 26.5 %.ConclusionsStudies assessing whole social network size and friendship networks of people with psychosis are difficult to compare as different concepts and methods of assessment were applied. The extent of the overlap between different social roles assessed in the networks was not always clear. Greater conceptual and methodological clarity is needed in order to help the development of effective strategies to increase social resources of patients with psychosis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1528-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMental health problems are disproportionately higher amongst homeless people. Many barriers exist for homeless people with mental health problems in accessing treatment yet little research has been done on service provision and quality of care for this group. The aim of this paper is to assess current service provision and identify barriers to care for homeless people with mental health problems in 14 European capital cities.MethodTwo methods of data collection were employed; (i) In two highly deprived areas in each of the 14 European capital cities, homeless-specific services providing mental health, social care or general health services were assessed. Data were obtained on service characteristics, staff and programmes provided. (ii) Semi-structured interviews were conducted in each area with experts in mental health care provision for homeless people in order to determine the barriers to care and ways to overcome them.ResultsAcross the 14 capital cities, 111 homeless-specific services were assessed. Input from professionally qualified mental health staff was reported as low, as were levels of active outreach and case finding. Out-of-hours service provision appears inadequate and high levels of service exclusion criteria were evident. Prejudice in the services towards homeless people, a lack of co-ordination amongst services, and the difficulties homeless people face in obtaining health insurance were identified as major barriers to service provision.ConclusionsWhile there is variability in service provision across European capital cities, the reported barriers to service accessibility are common. Homeless-specific services are more responsive to the initial needs of homeless people with mental health problems, while generic services tend to be more conducive to long term care. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of different service delivery models, including the most effective coordination of homeless specific and generic services.

BackgroundSocially marginalised groups tend to have higher rates of mental disorders than the general population and can be difficult to engage in health care. Providing mental health care for these groups represents a particular challenge, and evidence on good practice is required. This study explored the experiences and views of experts in 14 European countries regarding mental health care for six socially marginalised groups: long-term unemployed; street sex workers; homeless; refugees/asylum seekers; irregular migrants and members of the travelling communities.MethodsTwo highly deprived areas were selected in the capital cities of 14 countries, and experts were interviewed for each of the six marginalised groups. Semi-structured interviews with case vignettes were conducted to explore experiences of good practice and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsIn a total of 154 interviews, four components of good practice were identified across all six groups: a) establishing outreach programmes to identify and engage with individuals with mental disorders; b) facilitating access to services that provide different aspects of health care, including mental health care, and thus reducing the need for further referrals; c) strengthening the collaboration and co-ordination between different services; and d) disseminating information on services both to marginalised groups and to practitioners in the area.ConclusionsExperts across Europe hold similar views on what constitutes good practice in mental health care for marginalised groups. Care may be improved through better service organisation, coordination and information.

Fragmentation in mental health and social care delivery should be addressed at the system level. A Social Network Analysis was carried out on relations between services in order to assess Leutz's levels of care integration: linkage, coordination, and full integration. Findings for deprived areas in Brussels and London show that linkage across clusters of services is weak in both networks. However, the integration of care relies on the level of linkage in London, while in Brussels it is more dependent on central services playing brokerage roles. The method offers a useful and complementary basis for evaluating the integration of care.

BackgroundIrregular migrants (IMs) are exposed to a wide range of risk factors for developing mental health problems. However, little is known about whether and how they receive mental health care across European countries. The aims of this study were (1) to identify barriers to mental health care for IMs, and (2) to explore ways by which these barriers are overcome in practice.MethodsData from semi-structured interviews with 25 experts in the field of mental health care for IMs in the capital cities of 14 European countries were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsExperts reported a range of barriers to mental health care for IMs. These include the absence of legal entitlements to health care in some countries or a lack of awareness of such entitlements, administrative obstacles, a shortage of culturally sensitive care, the complexity of the social needs of IMs, and their fear of being reported and deported. These barriers can be partly overcome by networks of committed professionals and supportive services. NGOs have become important initial points of contact for IMs, providing mental health care themselves or referring IMs to other suitable services. However, these services are often confronted with the ethical dilemma of either acting according to the legislation and institutional rules or providing care for humanitarian reasons, which involves the risk of acting illegally and providing care without authorisation.ConclusionsEven in countries where access to health care is legally possible for IMs, various other barriers remain. Some of these are common to all migrants, whilst others are specific for IMs. Attempts at improving mental health care for IMs should consider barriers beyond legal entitlement, including communicating information about entitlement to mental health care professionals and patients, providing culturally sensitive care and ensuring sufficient resources.

Immigrants can face significant barriers in accessing mental healthcare. Strategies to overcome these barriers are as follows: increased coordination and communication between voluntary organizations, social services and mental health services; training of staff on cross-cultural issues; integration of mental healthcare with primary care; psychoeducational initiatives focused on families and broader social groups; and technology-based interventions.