■ Abstract Background Most people suffering from severe mental illness (SMI) lack paid employment. This study investigates the relationship between work status and objective as well as subjective quality of life (QoL) in people with SMI. Methods The sample consists of 261 subjects (102 women, 159 men) aged 35 (men) and 38 (women) years on average, of whom 158 suffer from a schizophrenic disorder (ICD-10: F2) and 103 were diagnosed as having an affective disorder (ICD-10: F3). Subjective QoL was assessed with the WHOQOL-BREF scale. Results Subjects with an occupation in general have a larger social network at their disposal and receive more social support. With regard to income, few (12 %) of the subjects with a job on the open labour market live below the poverty level, but many (28-38 %) of those engaged in sheltered or other work-like activities do. Occupation ameliorates satisfaction with life domains referring to social integration (social relationships, environment), whereas the individual's well-being (psychological, physical) is hardly affected. Social support is an important mediator of the relationship between occupation and subjective QoL. Income is weakly and negatively related to subjective QoL. Conclusions Supportive relationships to colleagues at the workplace mainly explain the better subjective QoL of SMI people with an occupation. When designing specific employment possibilities for people with SMI, we should take notice of the social support dimension at the workplace. Mentally ill people have a substantial poverty risk, even when they are working. In particular, payment for sheltered work should be ameliorated.■ Key words employment -quality of lifeschizophrenia -affective disorder -social support
Objective: The aim of this study is to compare individual characteristics associated with blood donation in the German and Swiss population between 1994 and 2010. Methods: Population-based survey data from the Eurobarometer 1994 and 2009, the Swiss Health Survey 1997, and the Swiss Blood Donation Survey 2010 were used to compare age-adjusted percentages of German and Swiss adults ever having donated blood (n = 8,746). A multivariate logistic regression was applied to the pooled data to estimate odds ratios (OR). Results: Donor rates between 1994 and 2010 increased by 8.6% in Germany (p = 0.0045) and remained stable in Switzerland. The likelihood to report donating increased with age. Gender differences (OR = 2.85; p = 0.0000) and differences between education levels were more pronounced in Switzerland as compared to Germany (OR = 2.56; p = 0.0000 and OR = 2.73; p = 0.0010). Furthermore education differences were more marked in men in both countries (OR = 1.99; p = 0.0000 and OR = 1.68; p = 0.0140). Conclusion: The blood establishments should intensify their efforts to motivate women and lower educated people to give blood. Our data suggest that population-based surveys could be a helpful tool to describe donor rates in different countries and to guide future recruitment strategies.
The awareness of social conceptions of mental illness is essential in understanding the social realities of people with mental illness. Labeling due to psychiatric hospitalization can have a powerful influence on people's life chances. Little is known about subjective perceptions of stigmatization and discrimination and the influence of these beliefs on the quality of life of mentally ill people. We used a psychiatric inpatient sample and a community sample to analyze and compare perception of stigmatization and discrimination. Both patients and community members believed that most people rejected former mental patients. Thus, attitudes toward mental illness have their source in the socialization of the individual and his or her cultural context rather than in the currently pathological state of those affected. In a multiple regression analysis, we showed that even if controlled for demographic and clinical factors, perceived devaluation and discrimination had a significant negative effect on the quality of life of the mentally ill people. For planning and implementing psychiatric treatment programs, it is important to be aware of social conceptions of mental disorder.
PurposeThe aims of this study were to analyze agreement on information needs within a group of early-state prostate cancer patients and to compare information preferences of patients with the view of health-care professionals about patients’ needs.MethodsSample consists of patients (n = 128) and six subgroups of health-care professionals (urologists, n = 32; nurses, n = 95; radiotherapy technologists (RTTs), n = 36; medical oncologists, n = 19; radiation oncologists, n = 12; general practitioners (GPs), n = 10). Information needs have been assessed with 92 questions concerning prostate cancer and its treatment. Respondents judged the importance of addressing each question. Within- and between-group agreements of patients and health-care professional groups were estimated with raw agreement indices as well as chance-corrected Kappa and Gwet’s AC1 measures. Finally, group-specific core items rated with high importance as well as high agreement were defined.ResultsPatients rated on average (median) half, i.e., 51 out 92 items as essential (interquartile range (IQR) = 36–66), 26 items as desired (IQR = 14–38), and 10 items as avoidable (IQR = 2–22). Within-group agreement on the presented information topics is modest for any participating group (AC1patients = 0.319; AC1professionals = 0.295–0.398). Agreement between patients and professionals is low too (AC1 = 0.282–0.329). Defining group-specific core sets of information topics results in 51 items being part of at least one core set. Concordance of the item core sets of patients and professionals is moderate with κ = 0.38–0.66, sensitivity of professionals’ core sets for patients’ preferences varies between 56 and 74 %.ConclusionsResults emphasize the need for dialogue between doctor/professional and patient in identifying the information needed by individual patients and support the importance of shared decision making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.