Référence bibliographique 
Iyer, Srividya N., Malla, Ashok, Pope, Megan, Mustafa, Sally, Mohan, Greeshma, Rangaswamy, Thara, Schmitz, Norbert, Joober, Ridha, Shah, Jai, Margolese, Howard C. et Padmavati, Ramachandran. 2022. «Whose Responsibility? Part 2 of 2: Views of Patients, Families, and Clinicians About Responsibilities for Addressing the Needs of Persons with Mental Health Problems in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada ». International Journal of Mental Health Systems, vol. 16, no 2, p. 1-16.
Accéder à la publication
The aim of this study is to explore «[t]he perceptions of various stakeholders regarding who should hold how much responsibility for addressing the needs of persons with mental illnesses […].» (p. 2)
The authors «hypothesized that, compared to their Chennai [India] counterparts, respondents in Montreal would ascribe higher levels of responsibility to the government for addressing mental healthcare needs.» (p. 2) The «second hypothesis was that compared to those in Montreal, respondents in Chennai would assign higher levels of responsibility to families (versus patients) for addressing mental healthcare needs.» (p. 3)
«This study is part of a two-year longitudinal study of outcomes of first-episode psychosis in Chennai, India and Montreal, Canada. […] In Montreal, two early intervention services (EIS) for psychosis called Prevention and Early Intervention Program(s) for Psychosis (PEPP-Montreal and PEPPMUHC) participated in the study. […] The Chennai site is the first-episode psychosis program at the Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF), a mental health-focused non-governmental organization and a World Health Organization collaborating centre.» (p. 3) «The sample comprised 164 patients, 164 family members, and 21 clinicians in Chennai; and 86 patients, 64 family members, and 29 clinicians in Montreal.» (p. 5)
Type de traitement des données :
The results of this study show that, «[i]rrespective of site, families felt that the government should be held more responsible for addressing needs than did patients. As a group, families tended to include more women and older individuals, and some previous research has shown these very groups to be more supportive of welfare state policies. Furthermore, family members’ caregiving experiences and associated strain may shape their perceptions about governments’ responsibility.» (p. 11) Also, «[a]s hypothesized, Chennai raters consistently ascribed more responsibility to families for addressing the needs of persons with mental health problems than did Montreal raters. […] In [the] sample, Chennai families had more contact with their loved one’s clinical team throughout treatment than did Montreal families. […] Irrespective of context, family raters assigned more responsibility to families for addressing all needs taken together for each of the seven support needs than did patient and clinician raters, and rated family responsibility as higher compared to patient raters. While clinicians and patients value the family’s role and presence, they may also perceive a need to balance families’ roles and responsibilities with those of patients, with a view to ultimately fostering patient independence and recovery.» (p. 12)