Modelos de colaboración para la atención a la salud mental en Andalucía: evaluación tras 9 años de implantación / Collaborative models for mental health care in Andalusia: an assessment after 9 years of implementation

Introducción: En 2002 se inició la implantación del Proceso de Atención Integrado Ansiedad, Depresión, Somatizaciones (PAIADS) en Andalucía (modelo de colaboración asistencial). Se presenta su evaluación después de 9 años. Material y metodos: Análisis cualitativo de un CS urbano1 (entrevistas en profundidad, análisis documental y de registros) que implantó el PAIADS en 2002. Cuestionario telefónico a 380 Centros de Salud (CS) y 76 Unidades de Salud Mental Comunitaria (USMC) (Noviembre 2008-Mayo 2009). Estadística descriptiva de frecuencias y análisis bivariante (paquete SPSS) Resultados: El análisis cualitativo del CS muestra los 4 pilares de la implantación exitosa del PAIADS: comunicación bidireccional entre instituciones y profesionales, organización de consulta conjunta, función de filtro e inclusión de objetivos de salud mental en contrato de gestión. La tasa de respuesta a los cuestionarios fue de 68.9% en CS y 78.9% en USMC. Solamente 2.3% de CS implantaron la totalidad del PAIADS. Sin embargo el 88.2% hace una implantación parcial de alguno de sus elementos: responsable del programa, desplazamiento periódico de especialistas aCS, formación, protocolos, consulta programada de salud mental por los médicos de familia y grupos psicoeducativos en los CS. Los análisis muestran que la satisfacción profesional alta y la menor demora para primeras consultas a atenciónespecializada están asociadas con la implantación del PAIADS (pacientes vistos conjuntamente, formación y protocolos). Adicionalmente encontramos que el mayor numero de derivaciones esta asociado a menor masificación de las consultas, ausencia de oferta de grupos psicoeducativos en los CS y no desplazamiento periódico de especialistas. Conclusiones: El PAIADS tiene capacidad de contención no medicalizadora y gestión de la demanda para estas patologías en los CS y genera satisfacción profesional sin costes añadidos de implantación o mantenimiento. Es necesario realizar investigaciones complementarias sobre su impacto en la salud mental de los pacientes(AU)

Introduction: The implementation of the Integrated Care Process of Anxiety, Depression and Somatization (ICPADS; a collaborative care model) began in Andalusia in 2002.. Data presented correspond to an assessment after 9 years of implementation. Material and methods: Telephone questionnaire were carried out to 380 Health Centers (HC) and 76 Community Mental Health Units (CMHU) from November 2008 to May 2009. This was completed with a qualitative analysis for an urban HC (in depth interviews, document analysis) which introduced the ICPADS in 2002. We used descriptive statistics of frequencies and univariate analysis (SPSS software). Results: Qualitative analysis revealed four stone corners of a successful implementation: a two-way communication between institutions and professionals, an organization of shared consultation, a filter function and an inclusion of mental health objectives in the management contract. Response rate to the questionnaire was 68.9% in HCs and 78.9% in the CMHUs. ICPADS was fully implanted in 2.3% of HCs. However, a partial implantation was observed in 88.2% of the units on specific aspects as the existence of a person in charge of the program, periodic visits from mental health specialists to HCs, continued education, protocols, specific mental health consultation from family physicians and psychoeducational groups offered in the HCs. Analyses revealed that a higher job satisfaction and minor delays for a first specialist visit were associated with the implementation of ICPADS (shared consultation, continued education and protocols). In addition, an increased number of referrals were associated with a less overcrowded consultation and a lack of both psychoeducational groups offer and periodic visits from mental health specialists. Conclusions: The ICPADS showed the capacity to solve and manage mental health demands of these pathologies in the HCs without medicalize them and generates job satisfaction without added costs of implementation or maintenance. However, further research would be desirable in order to assess the benefits of the program on patients' mental health(AU)

[Validity of smoking measurements during pregnancy: specificity, sensitivity and cut-off points]. / Validez de distintas medidas de consumo de tabaco durante el embarazo: especificidad, sensibilidad y puntos de corte dónde y cuándo.

BACKGROUND: Non-disclosure by pregnant women smokers of their smoking habit questions the validity of self-declarations. The purpose of this research is to determine the rate of Non disclosure and to establish the validity of exhaled CO as a method of biochemical validation. METHOD: Data obtained in a Randomised Clinical Trial in 12 Health Centres in Malaga. 454 pregnant women smokers, of whom 104 declared that they had stopped smoking at the start. Measurement of the habit: self-declaration, carbon monoxide (CO) and cotinine in the urine in those subjects who declared that they no longer smoked. The ROC curve was obtained for the CO, calculating the area under the curve and the sensitivity and specificity for different cut-off points. Using the CO as the gold standard, the validity of the self-declarations was determined in terms of sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Cotinine/self-declaration comparison: rate of Non disclosure 15.4% (IC 95% 9.3-24.1). Cotinine/CO comparison: Area under the ROC curve of 0.838 (IC 95% 0.740-0.935). For a cut-off point of 9, recommended in the relevant bibliography, we achieved 100% specificity with 12.5% sensitivity. CO/self-declaration comparison (cut-off point 9): False negations 0.8%, prevalence of spontaneous abandonment of smoking habit 58.1%. CONCLUSIONS: A percentage of Non disclosure similar to other studies and the validity of CO as a method for the identification of women smokers are confirmed. At cut-off point 9, the validity of CO and self-declaration would be similar, with the prevalence of spontaneous abandonment increasing up to unreal figures. At the present time, the evidence is not sufficient in order to recommend 9 as the CO cut-off point. The results suggest that this should be lower. More extensive research is necessary in pregnant women who state that they do not smoke, using an appropriate methodology.

Validez de distintas medidas de consumo de tabaco durante el embarazo: especificidad, sensibilidad y puntos de corte dónde y cuándo / Validity of smoking measurements during pregnancy: scpecificity sensitivity and cut-off points

Fundamentos: La ocultación del hábito tabáquico en mujeres embarazadas fumadoras cuestiona la validez de la autodeclaración. Los objetivos de esta investigación son determinar el índice de ocultación y establecer la validez del CO en aire espirado como método de validación bioquímica. Método: Datos obtenidos de un Ensayo Clínico Aleatorizado en 12 Centros de Salud de Málaga. 454 mujeres embarazadas fumadoras de las cuales manifestaron abandonar 104 al inicio. Medición del habito: autodeclaración, monóxido de carbono (CO) y cotinina en orina en las que declararon no fumar. Para el CO se obtuvo la curva ROC calculándose el área bajo la curva y la sensibilidad y especificidad para diferentes puntos de corte. Empleando el CO como patrón oro se determinó la validez de la autodeclaración, en términos de la sensibilidad y la especificidad. Resultados: Comparación cotinina/autodeclaración: tasa de ocultación 15,4% (IC 95% 9,3-24,1). Comparación cotinina/CO: Área bajo la curva ROC de 0,838 (IC 95% 0,740-0,935). Para punto de corte de 9, recomendado en la bibliografía, logramos especificidad 100% con sensibilidad 12,5%. Comparación CO/autodeclaración (punto de corte 9): Falsos negativos 0.8%, prevalencia abandono espontáneo 58,1%. Conclusiones: Se confirma un porcentaje de ocultación similar a otros estudios y la validez del CO como método para la identificación de mujeres fumadoras. En punto de corte 9, la validez de CO y autodeclaración serían similares, aumentando hasta cifras irreales la prevalencia del abandono espontáneo En la actualidad no hay pruebas suficientes para recomendar el 9 como punto de corte de CO. Los resultados sugieren que este debería ser inferior. Son necesarias investigaciones más amplias en mujeres gestantes que se declaren no fumadoras con una metodología adecuada (AU)

Background: Non disclosure by pregnant women smokers of their smoking habit questions the validity of self-declarations. The purpose of this research is to determine the rate of Non disclosure and to establish the validity of exhaled CO as a method of biochemical validation. Method: Data obtained in a Randomised Clinical Trial in 12 Health Centres in Malaga. 454 pregnant women smokers, of whom 104 declared that they had stopped smoking at the start. Measurement of the habit: self-declaration, carbon monoxide (CO) and cotinine in the urine in those subjects who declared that they no longer smoked. The ROC curve was obtained for the CO, calculating the area under the curve and the sensitivity and specificity for different cut-off points. Using the CO as the gold standard, the validity of the self-declarations was determined in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Results: Cotinine/self-declaration comparison: rate of Non disclosure 15.4% (IC 95% 9.3-24.1). Cotinine/CO comparison: Area under the ROC curve of 0.838 (IC 95% 0.740-0.935). For a cut-off point of 9, recommended in the relevant bibliography, we achieved 100% specificity with 12.5% sensitivity. CO/self-declaration comparison (cut-off point 9): False negations 0.8%, prevalence of spontaneous abandonment of smoking habit 58.1%. Conclusions: A percentage of Non disclosure similar to other studies and the validity of CO as a method for the identification of women smokers are confirmed. At cut-off point 9, the validity of CO and self-declaration would be similar, with the prevalence of spontaneous abandonment increasing up to unreal figures. At the present time, the evidence is not sufficient in order to recommend 9 as the CO cut-off point. The results suggest that this should be lower. More extensive research is necessary in pregnant women who state that they do not smoke, using an appropriate methodology (AU)