barrier for patients to receive the treatment they need. The primary care physicians feel they need better preparation, training and information to deal with and to treat mental illness, such as a user friendly and pragmatic classification system that addresses the high prevalence of mental disorders in primary care and community settings.

ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to investigate how doctors working in primary health care in Latin American address patients with common mental disorders and to investigate how stigma can affect their clinical decisions.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, we applied an online self-administered questionnaire to a sample of 550 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba and Chile. The questionnaire collected information about sociodemographic variables, training and experience with mental health care. Clinicians’ stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health were measured using the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4). The clinical decisions of PCPs were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical cases of depression, anxiety and somatization.ResultsA total of 387 professionals completed the questionnaires (70.3% response rate). The 63.7% of the PCPs felt qualified to diagnose and treat people with common mental disorders. More than 90% of the PCPs from Bolivia, Cuba and Chile agreed to treat the patients presented in the three vignettes. We did not find significant differences between the four countries in the scores of the MICA v4 stigma levels, with a mean = 36.3 and SD = 8.3 for all four countries. Gender (p = .672), age (p = .171), training (p = .673) and years of experience (p = .28) were unrelated to stigma. In the two multivariate regression models, PCPs with high levels of stigma were more likely to refer them to a psychiatrist the patients with depression (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.07 p<0.05) and somatoform symptoms somatoform (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07, p<0.05) to a psychiatrist.DiscussionThe majority of PCPs in the four countries were inclined to treat patients with depression, anxiety and somatoform symptoms. PCPs with more levels of stigma were more likely to refer the patients with depression and somatoform symptoms to a psychiatrist. Stigmatizing attitudes towards mental disorders by PCPs might be important barriers for people with mental health problems to receive the treatment they need in primary care.

The objective of this study was to investigate barriers to appropriate mental health care in a sample of Bolivian migrants living in São Paulo and to examine the association between barriers of care and the presence of symptoms of non-psychotic psychiatric disorders in this population. Considering that treatment usually reduces symptoms, it could be hypothesized that individuals reporting more barriers to care also will report more symptoms. The sample comprised 104 individuals born in Bolivia, with Bolivian nationality and living in São Paulo for at least 30 days prior to enrolling in the study, between 18 and 80 years of age and able to read and write in Spanish or Portuguese. The symptoms of mental disorders were assessed using the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) and barriers to appropriate mental health care were evaluated using the Barriers to Assessing Care Evaluation (BACE). A multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine the predictive effect of the BACE total score (independent variable) in the SRQ-20 score (dependent variable), including in the model, and the variables that were significantly correlated with the BACE total score or SRQ-20. Our results indicate that more than a half of the sample of Bolivian migrants living in Sao Paulo, Brazil, especially females, presented significant non-psychotic psychopathology. Individuals reporting more barriers to care, especially instrumental and attitudinal barriers, also have a higher risk of psychiatric symptoms, independently of sex, age and family income. Our results suggest that actions to increase availability of mental health services, especially culturally sensitive services, could reduce barriers to care and improve mental health among migrants.

The object of the study was to translate and validate the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS) into Brazilian Portuguese. A native Brazilian speaker fluent in English translated the RIBS into Brazilian Portuguese. Comprehensibility and face validity were assessed through discussions with mental health professionals and volunteers recruited from the community. Brazilian Portuguese version of the questionnaire was back-translated into English by another Brazilian researcher fluent in English and the researcher who developed the original RIBS was consulted to check the adequacy of the questionnaire translation, and approved the final translated version. RIBS-BP was administered to 1,357 caregivers from a community-based cohort. Internal consistency and factor loading were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Differential item functioning was examined using Multiple Indicator Multiple Causes for subgroups of gender, socioeconomic status, and caregiver education. To assess external validity, we examined whether responses in RIBS-BP varied among these subgroups, considering respondents’ previous contact with people with mental illness. CFA fit indices were good to excellent (root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.07; 90% confidence interval, CI [0.04, 0.10]; comparative fit index [CFI] = 1.00; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 1.00). All loadings were above 0.4 (0.73 to 0.89), indicating that intended behavior items are related to the same unidimensional latent factor. In the latent model, higher socioeconomic status was associated with less intended stigma-related behavior (β = 0.20, p < .001), adjusted for education and gender. RIBS-BP has good internal consistency, demonstrate measurement invariance among subgroups, and appears to be a valid measure of stigma, representing a suitable tool to assess reported and intended stigma-related behaviors in Brazil.

Objective The objective of our study was to explore clinical decisions of psychiatrists regarding the management of common mental disorders in primary care (PC) in four Latin Americans countries, through the application of clinical vignettes. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, we conducted a self-administered online questionnaire survey of psychiatrists from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, and Chile. The questionnaire covered sociodemographic and professional information. The psychiatrists’ clinical decisions were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical PC cases of depression, anxiety, and somatization. Results 230 psychiatrists completed the online survey. Psychiatrists from Brazil were less likely to recognize depression as a mental disorder than those from Cuba (odds ratio (OR) = 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.91, p < 0.04). Female gender (OR = 0.19, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.91, p < 0.02) and older age (OR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97, p < 0.01) reduced the likelihood of agreement that depression cases should be treated by a Primary Care Physician (PCP). In the somatoform symptoms vignette, longer training duration increased the likelihood of agreement that treatment should be done by a psychiatrist instead of a PCP (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.37, p < 0.01). In the anxiety vignette, females (OR = 2.38, 95% CI, 1.10 to 5.13, p < 0.01) and participants from Bolivia (compared with Cubans, OR = 4.19, 95% CI, 1.22 to 14.42, p < 0.02) were more likely to consider that these patients should be treated by a psychiatrist instead of a PCP. Discussion Most psychiatrist respondents agreed that patients with depression should be treated by PCPs and that somatoform and anxiety cases should be treated by psychiatrists. These results show that psychiatrists consider that they, and not PCPs, should treat patients with common mental disorders, regardless of the evidence showing that common mental disorders can be treated by primary care physicians in PC.

Objective To describe translation to Spanish and Portuguese and adaptation of the Mental Illness Clinicians’ Attitudes Scale version 4 (MICA v4). Methods The questionnaire was administered to primary care physicians (PCPs) from four Latin-American countries, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Cuba. The validation process included four phases: 1) translation of the questionnaire to Spanish and Portuguese; 2) assessment of face validity; 3) assessment of reliability; and 4) evaluation of construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results The study sample comprised 427 PCPs. The mean age of the Spanish-speaking sample (n = 252) was 40.1 (S.D = 9.7) years and the mean age of the Portuguese-speaking sample (n = 150) was 40.2 (S.D = 10.9) years. Both models demonstrated “appropriate” internal reliability. Total omega was 0.91 for the Spanish-speaking sample and 0.89 for the Portuguese-speaking sample. The CFA of both questionnaires showed an appropriate fit for a three-factor model (Portuguese: CFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.913; RMSEA = 0.066; Spanish: CFI = 0.945; TLI = 0.935; RMSEA = 0.068). Conclusion The Latin-American versions of the MICA v4 in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese have appropriate psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and are applicable to and acceptable in the Latin-American context. The instrument proved its validity for collecting data on stigmatizing attitudes among health professionals in different contexts and cultures.

Introduction Prodromal characteristics of psychosis have been described for more than a century. Over the last three decades, a variety of studies have proposed methods to prospectively identify individuals (and youth in particular) who are at high risk of developing a psychotic disorder. These studies have validated various screening instruments and made them available in several languages. Here, we describe the translation into Brazilian Portuguese and cross-cultural adaptation of two such screening tools – the Prodromal Questionnaire-16 (PQ-16) and the Prevention through Risk Identification, Management, and Education (PRIME)-Screen. Method Two bilingual native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese translated the questionnaires from English. A native English speaker then performed back-translations into English. These back-translated versions were submitted to the original authors. They provided feedback and later approved the final versions. Results After translation and cross-cultural adaptation, no items needed to be changed in the adapted PQ-16 and four items were revised in the PRIME-Screen. After the peer-review process, we included two suggestions in the PQ-16 to facilitate use of the tool in our cultural and social contexts. The PRIME-Screen did not need further changes. Conclusion These new instruments can help screen Brazilian Portuguese-speaking patients who are at risk of psychosis in primary care.

No abstract