| Literature DB >> 18718027 |
Michelle Kermode1, Alexandra Devine, Prabha Chandra, Bernice Dzuvichu, Thomhood Gilbert, Helen Herrman.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HIV prevalence in north-east India is high and injecting drug use (IDU) is common. Due to HIV-related deaths there are increasing numbers of IDU widows, many of whom are HIV infected, and experiencing poor health, social isolation, discrimination and poverty, all factors likely to be compromising their mental health. There is increasing recognition of the links between HIV and mental health.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18718027 PMCID: PMC2533322 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-294
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Outline of the ten PAG meetings for widows of IDUs
| • Introduction to the PAG process | • Baseline questionnaires: | |
| • Identifying members' expectations | - WHO QOL-BREF | |
| • Highlighting individual strengths and skills | - GHQ12 | |
| - Health Risk Questionnaire | ||
| • Meeting summary report | ||
| • Concepts and determinants of mental health for widows of IDUs | • Focus Group Discussion | |
| • Meeting summary report | ||
| • Mental health and mental health promotion | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Envisioning a positive future | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Promoting social inclusion | ||
| • Addressing stigma and discrimination | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Relaxation techniques | ||
| • Improving access to work and resources | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Prioritising ideas for action plan development | ||
| • Developing action plans | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Developing action plans | • Collection of MSC stories | |
| • MSC approach | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Mental health and HIV | • Focus Group Discussion | |
| • Feedback of MSC stories | • Meeting summary report | |
| • Finalising action plans | • Post-intervention questionnaires: | |
| • Celebration | - WHO QOL-BREF | |
| - GHQ12 | ||
| - Health Risk Questionnaire | ||
| • Meeting summary report |
Figure 1Process of Most Significant Change story selection.
Retention in the intervention and reasons for dropping out
| 16 | 14 | 87.5 | • Attending detoxification program | |
| • Language barriers | ||||
| 14 | 13 | 92.8 | • Illness | |
| 11 | 11 | 100 | N/A | |
| 12 | 7 | 58.3 | • Returned to home village | |
| • Death of participant | ||||
| • Death of children | ||||
| • Re-marriage | ||||
| • Drug use | ||||
| 9 | 5 | 55.5 | • Ineligibility (not a widow) | |
| • Decided not to participate | ||||
| • Illness | ||||
| 12 | 9 | 75.0 | • Childbirth | |
| • Illness | ||||
Demographics of the participants attending first PAG meeting
| 33 yrs (23–46) | 32 yrs (20–52) | 32.5 yrs (20–52) | |
| 4.5 yrs (3 mth-12.8 yrs) | 4.2 yrs (1 mth-11 yrs) | 4.3 yrs (1 mth-12.8 yrs) | |
| 2.2 (1–4) | 2.7 (0–7) | 2.4 (0–7) | |
| Naga | 2 (5) | 26 (79) | 28 (38) |
| Meitei | 26 (63) | 0 | 26 (35) |
| Other | 11 (27) | 7 (21) | 18(24) |
| Missing | 2 (5) | 0 | 2 (3) |
| Christian | 14 (34) | 30 (91) | 44 (59) |
| Hindu | 25 (61) | 2 (6) | 27 (37) |
| Muslim | 0 | 1 (3) | 1 (1) |
| Missing | 2 (5) | 0 | 2 (3) |
| Employed | 2 (5) | 10 (30) | 12 (16) |
| Unemployed | 37 (90) | 23 (70) | 60 (81) |
| Missing | 2 (5) | 0 | 2 (3) |
| None | - | 7 (21) | 7 (9) |
| Primary | 5 (12) | 1 (3) | 6 (8) |
| Secondary | 15 (37) | 24 (73) | 39 (53) |
| Tertiary | 21 (51) | 1 (3) | 22 (30) |
Mean scores (SD) for Quality of Life domains at the beginning and end of the intervention by state
| Physical | 42 (15.1) | 58 (13.7) | <0.01 | 55 (16.1) | 57 (11.4) | NS | 47 (16.7) | 57 (12.8) | <0.01 |
| Psychological | 51 (18.5) | 59 (15.5) | <0.01 | 53 (12.2) | 57 (9.9) | NS | 52 (16.5) | 59 (13.7) | <0.01 |
| Social | 43 (20.3) | 49 (23.2) | NS | 52 (12.8) | 53 (17.2) | NS | 46 (18.3) | 51 (21.2) | NS |
| Environmental | 34 (18.1) | 45 (12.1) | <0.01 | 45 (14.0) | 47 (13.5) | NS | 38 (17.5) | 46 (12.5) | <0.01 |
Figure 2Two stories selected as representing the 'most significant change'.
Figure 3Categories of valued changes identified using the Most Significant Change method.
Proportion of participants with a possible common mental disorder as assessed by GHQ12 (using 3/4 cut-off) at the beginning and end of the intervention by state
| 70% | 49% | NS | 70% | 30% | 0.04 | 70% | 42% | <0.01 |
| 26/37 | 18/37 | 23/33 | 6/20 | 49/70 | 24/57 | |||
Somatic complaints at the beginning and end of the intervention
| Pain | 8.6 | 7.4 | NS | 10.0 | 8.7 | = 0.04 | 9.3 | 7.9 | <0.01 |
| Sensory sensations | 16.9 | 15.6 | NS | 16.0 | 12.0 | = 0.01 | 16.7 | 14.5 | NS |
| Bodily functions | 7.0 | 6.2 | NS | 7.5 | 7.6 | NS | 7.1 | 6.6 | NS |
| Reproductive health | 3.3 | 5.4 | = 0.02 | 4.4 | 3.0 | NS | 3.7 | 4.7 | NS |
NS = not significant at p < 0.05.