The study has revealed several differences in resources, organisation and utilisation of the mental health services between the two compared areas. The very large variations indicate that underlying local patterns of service delivering must be further investigated and taken into account in the planning of the services development.

In spite of the limitations due to minor differences in the data collection phase in the two countries, the study clearly demonstrates differences in diagnostic practice between the countries.

Both in Norway and Russia a considerable portion of the population have substance use disorders. However, the knowledge about outpatient services treating substance use disorders in Norway and Russia is limited. This study will describe and compare outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Arkhangelsk in Northwest Russia and in Bodø and Tromsø in Northern Norway on availability, accessibility and treated prevalence (patients treated in one year). The managers (N=3) of the outpatient clinics (N=3) were interviewed with the European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) and the International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC). The interviews were supplemented by e-mail and phone calls. The treatment in Arkhangelsk was mainly biologically oriented (medical), while a greater variety of methods was available in Bodø and Tromsø. The clinic in Russia was a drop-in clinic, while in Norway patients needed a referral to get an appointment in the clinic. Patients treated in Arkhangelsk (treated prevalence) was 1662, while in Bodø it was 233 and in Tromsø 220. The present study revealed great differences between the clinics involved in accessibility, availability and treated prevalence. Cultural traditions and budgeting of the mental health care system could explain some of the findings.

BackgroundA general education in psychiatry does not necessary lead to good diagnostic skills. Specific training programs in diagnostic coding are established to facilitate implementation of ICD-10 coding practices. However, studies comparing the impact of these two different educational approaches on diagnostic skills are lacking. The aim of the current study was to find out if a specific training program in diagnostic coding improves the diagnostic skills better than a general education program, and if a national bias in diagnostic patterns can be minimised by a specific training in diagnostic coding.MethodsA pre post design study with two groups was carried in the county of Archangels, Russia. The control group (39 psychiatrists) took the required course (general educational program), while the intervention group (45 psychiatrists) were given a specific training in diagnostic coding. Their diagnostic skills before and after education were assessed using 12 written case-vignettes selected from the entire spectrum of psychiatric disorders.ResultsThere was a significant improvement in diagnostic skills in both the intervention group and the control group. However, the intervention group improved significantly more than did the control group. The national bias was partly corrected in the intervention group but not to the same degree in the control group. When analyzing both groups together, among the background factors only the current working place impacted the outcome of the intervention.ConclusionEstablishing an internationally accepted diagnosis seems to be a special skill that requires specific training and needs to be an explicit part of the professional educational activities of psychiatrists. It does not appear that that skill is honed without specific training. The issue of national diagnostic biases should be taken into account in comparative cross-cultural studies of almost any character. The mechanisms of such biases are complex and need further consideration in future research. Future research should also address the question as to whether the observed improvement in diagnostic skills after specific training actually leads to changes in routine diagnostic practice.