Psychiatric Advance Directives (PADs) are documents that allow users with severe and chronic mental illnesses to notify their treatment preferences for future crisis relapses and to appoint a surrogate decision‐maker for a period of incompetence. Despite many supposed clinical and organisational benefits, their take‐up rate has remained very low and their clinical evaluation has given contradictory results for organisational outcomes. Intermediary results are available, however, which rely on different theoretical views about how PADs are supposed to work. We carried out a realist systematic review that considered the PAD as a multistage intervention including the definition of the document, its completion and its access and honouring. We identified the theoretical frameworks underlying this kind of intervention and examined the available evidence that supported or contradicted the expectations at each stage of the intervention. Forty‐seven references were retrieved, ranging from 1996 to 2009. Three frameworks underlie a PAD intervention: enhancement of the autonomy of the user, improvement of the therapeutic alliance and integration of care through partnership working. Although designed in the first place with a view to sustaining the user’s autonomy, results indicate that the intervention is more efficient within a therapeutic alliance framework. Moreover, much is known about the completion process and the content of the document, but very little about its access and honouring. The mixture of expectations makes the purpose of PADs unclear, for example, crisis relapse prevention or management, advance planning of long‐term or emergency care, or reduction in the resort to coercion. This may explain their low take‐up rates. Hence, frameworks and purpose have to be clarified. The shape of the whole intervention at each stage relies on such clarification. More research is needed, particularly on the later stages of the intervention, as the evidence for how PADs should be implemented is still incomplete.

BackgroundNonadherence is common among patients with schizophrenia, although the rates vary according to means of assessment and patient population. Failure to adhere to medication can have a major impact on the course of illness and treatment outcomes, including increasing the risk of relapse and rehospitalization. Understanding psychiatrists’ perception of the causes and consequences of nonadherence is crucial to addressing adherence problems effectively.MethodsThe Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) Spanish Adherencia Terapéutica en la Esquizofrenia (ADHES) survey was conducted by questionnaire during January–March 2010 among psychiatrists treating patients with schizophrenia in 36 countries. The survey comprised 20 questions. In addition to recording the demographic details of the 4722 respondents (~12% response rate), it canvassed their preferred methods of assessing adherence, their perceptions of adherence rates, reasons for nonadherence, and strategies to improve adherence.ResultsPsychiatrists estimated that 53% of their patients with schizophrenia were partially/nonadherent during the previous month. They estimated only one-third of patients who deteriorated after stopping medication were able to attribute this to nonadherence. Psychiatrists assessed adherence most often by patient interview. Lack of insight was viewed as the most important cause of medication discontinuation, followed by patients feeling better and thinking their medication unnecessary, and experiencing undesirable side effects. Considerably fewer psychiatrists viewed insufficient efficacy, cognitive impairment, or drug/alcohol abuse as the most important reasons for their patients stopping medication.ConclusionPsychiatrists throughout EMEA recognize the impact of partial/nonadherence to medication, with patient enquiry being the most commonly used means of assessment. There remains a need for more proactive management of patients with schizophrenia, particularly in increasing patient insight of their illness in order to improve adherence and minimize the consequences of relapse. Strategies focused on raising awareness of the importance of adherence are also warranted, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in schizophrenia.

No abstract

Policy ethnography approaches provide useful qualitative data that give a nuanced and realistic ground-level view of policies too often analyzed abstractly from the top. However, the scope of these approaches must not be limited to producing more precise information. Fieldwork on the control of welfare recipients in France shows that ethnography, and more specifically direct observation, is particularly suited to uncovering the structural features of the new wave of public policies sweeping through advanced societies in the wake of the demise of the Fordist-Keynesian compact. Among other consequences, the 'de-objectivation' of the collective categories created during the process of welfare state development leads to more stringent and intense controls of recipients. These controls are based on loose criteria defined in situated practices and interactions. The ethnographic capture and analysis of the concrete practices of agents of welfare bureaucracies enable us to track and critique the more abstract transformations of the social state in the age of 'workfare.' Such fieldwork provides an illustration of the empirical and theoretical potentials of critical policy ethnography.