Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Fulltext Diagnostic Criteria for Somatosensory Tinnitus: A Delphi Process and Face-to-Face Meeting to Establish Consensus
    Michiels S, Ganz Sanchez T, Oron Y, Gilles A, Haider HF, Erlandsson S, et al.
    Trends Hear, 2018 9 15;22:2331216518796403.
    PMID: 30213235 DOI: 10.1177/2331216518796403
    Since somatic or somatosensory tinnitus (ST) was first described as a subtype of subjective tinnitus, where altered somatosensory afference from the cervical spine or temporomandibular area causes or changes a patient's tinnitus perception, several studies in humans and animals have provided a neurophysiological explanation for this type of tinnitus. Due to a lack of unambiguous clinical tests, many authors and clinicians use their own criteria for diagnosing ST. This resulted in large differences in prevalence figures in different studies and limits the comparison of clinical trials on ST treatment. This study aimed to reach an international consensus on diagnostic criteria for ST among experts, scientists and clinicians using a Delphi survey and face-to-face consensus meeting strategy. Following recommended procedures to gain expert consensus, a two-round Delphi survey was delivered online, followed by an in-person consensus meeting. Experts agreed upon a set of criteria that strongly suggest ST. These criteria comprise items on somatosensory modulation, specific tinnitus characteristics, and symptoms that can accompany the tinnitus. None of these criteria have to be present in every single patient with ST, but in case they are present, they strongly suggest the presence of ST. Because of the international nature of the survey, we expect these criteria to gain wide acceptance in the research field and to serve as a guideline for clinicians across all disciplines. Criteria developed in this consensus paper should now allow further investigation of the extent of somatosensory influence in individual tinnitus patients and tinnitus populations.
  2. Stigma towards mental illness in Asian nations and low-and-middle-income countries, and comparison with high-income countries: A literature review and practice implications
    Vaishnav M, Javed A, Gupta S, Kumar V, Vaishnav P, Kumar A, et al.
    Indian J Psychiatry, 2023 Oct;65(10):995-1011.
    PMID: 38108051 DOI: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_667_23
    BACKGROUND: Stigma related to mental illness (and its treatment) is prevalent worldwide. This stigma could be at the structural or organizational level, societal level (interpersonal stigma), and the individual level (internalized stigma). Vulnerable populations, for example, gender minorities, children, adolescents, and geriatric populations, are more prone to stigma. The magnitude of stigma and its negative influence is determined by socio-cultural factors and macro (mental health policies, programs) or micro-level factors (societal views, health sectors, or individuals' attitudes towards mentally ill persons). Mental health stigma is associated with more serious psychological problems among the victims, reduced access to mental health care, poor adherence to treatment, and unfavorable outcomes. Although various nationwide and well-established anti-stigma interventions/campaigns exist in high-income countries (HICs) with favorable outcomes, a comprehensive synthesis of literature from the Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), more so from the Asian continent is lacking. The lack of such literature impedes growth in stigma-related research, including developing anti-stigma interventions.

    AIM: To synthesize the available mental health stigma literature from Asia and LMICs and compare them on the mental health stigma, anti-stigma interventions, and the effectiveness of such interventions from HICs.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar databases were screened using the following search terms: stigma, prejudice, discrimination, stereotype, perceived stigma, associate stigma (for Stigma), mental health, mental illness, mental disorder psychiatric* (for mental health), and low-and-middle-income countries, LMICs, High-income countries, and Asia, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation/SAARC (for countries of interest). Bibliographic and grey literature were also performed to obtain the relevant records.

    RESULTS: The anti-stigma interventions in Asia nations and LMICs are generalized (vs. disorder specific), population-based (vs. specific groups, such as patients, caregivers, and health professionals), mostly educative (vs. contact-based or attitude and behavioral-based programs), and lacking in long-term effectiveness data. Government, international/national bodies, professional organizations, and mental health professionals can play a crucial in addressing mental health stigma.

    CONCLUSION: There is a need for a multi-modal intervention and multi-sectoral coordination to mitigate the mental health stigma. Greater research (nationwide surveys, cultural determinants of stigma, culture-specific anti-stigma interventions) in this area is required.

Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links