Nev Jones1, Sarah Kamens1, Oladunni Oluwoye1, Franco Mascayano1, Chris Perry1, Marc Manseau1, Michael T Compton1. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa (Jones); Department of Psychology, State University of New York Old Westbury, Old Westbury (Kamens); Department of Medical Education and Clinical Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman (Oluwoye); Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York City (Mascayano); Path Program, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (Perry); Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, New York City (Manseau); Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York City (Compton).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about provider perspectives on programmatic responses to structural disadvantage and cultural differences within early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services, programs, and models. The primary objective of this study was to investigate providers' perspectives on the impacts of disadvantage and minority race, ethnicity, and culture and to describe current practices and perceived gaps and concerns. METHODS: An online survey of specialized EIP providers was disseminated in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and Chile. A total of 164 providers, representing 110 unique sites, completed the survey. Closed-ended questions gathered demographic and program data, including information on formal assessment of trauma or adversity, integration of trauma-informed care, integration of formal cultural assessment tools, training focused on culture, programmatic changes to address culture-related issues, and consultation with cultural insiders. Open-ended questions addressed the demographic mix of the program's client population; the perceived role and influence of trauma, structural disadvantage, and cultural differences; and concerns and needs related to these topics. Frequencies were examined for closed-ended items; open-ended responses were systematically coded. RESULTS: Overall, survey findings suggested low levels of implementation of a variety of assessment and support practices related to cultural diversity in EIP programs. Coding of open-ended responses revealed numerous concerns regarding the impacts of disadvantage and cultural difference on clients and perceived gaps in policy and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: An expansion of research and service development aimed at better meeting the disadvantage- and culture-related needs of young people with early psychosis and their families should be a priority for the field.
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about provider perspectives on programmatic responses to structural disadvantage and cultural differences within early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services, programs, and models. The primary objective of this study was to investigate providers' perspectives on the impacts of disadvantage and minority race, ethnicity, and culture and to describe current practices and perceived gaps and concerns. METHODS: An online survey of specialized EIP providers was disseminated in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, and Chile. A total of 164 providers, representing 110 unique sites, completed the survey. Closed-ended questions gathered demographic and program data, including information on formal assessment of trauma or adversity, integration of trauma-informed care, integration of formal cultural assessment tools, training focused on culture, programmatic changes to address culture-related issues, and consultation with cultural insiders. Open-ended questions addressed the demographic mix of the program's client population; the perceived role and influence of trauma, structural disadvantage, and cultural differences; and concerns and needs related to these topics. Frequencies were examined for closed-ended items; open-ended responses were systematically coded. RESULTS: Overall, survey findings suggested low levels of implementation of a variety of assessment and support practices related to cultural diversity in EIP programs. Coding of open-ended responses revealed numerous concerns regarding the impacts of disadvantage and cultural difference on clients and perceived gaps in policy and implementation. CONCLUSIONS: An expansion of research and service development aimed at better meeting the disadvantage- and culture-related needs of young people with early psychosis and their families should be a priority for the field.
Entities:
Keywords:
Early intervention in psychosis; Early psychosis; Race and ethnicity; Structural disadvantage
Authors: Marcela Horvitz-Lennon; Rita Volya; Rachel Garfield; Julie M Donohue; Judith R Lave; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Cherise Rosen; Nev Jones; Eleanor Longden; Kayla A Chase; Mona Shattell; Jennifer K Melbourne; Sarah K Keedy; Rajiv P Sharma Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Farhana Mann; Helen L Fisher; Barnaby Major; Jo Lawrence; Andrew Tapfumaneyi; John Joyce; Mark F Hinton; Sonia Johnson Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Joseph S DeLuca; Derek M Novacek; Laura H Adery; Shaynna N Herrera; Yulia Landa; Cheryl M Corcoran; Elaine F Walker Journal: Evid Based Pract Child Adolesc Ment Health Date: 2022-03-23
Authors: Cansu Sarac; Joseph S DeLuca; Zarina R Bilgrami; Shaynna N Herrera; Jonathan J Myers; Matthew F Dobbs; Shalaila S Haas; Therese L Todd; Agrima Srivastava; Rachel Jespersen; Riaz B Shaik; Yulia Landa; Larry Davidson; Anthony J Pavlo; Cheryl M Corcoran Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2021-06-17