Outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Northwest Russia and Northern Norway: a descriptive comparative study.

Both in Norway and Russia a considerable portion of the population have substance use disorders. However, the knowledge about outpatient services treating substance use disorders in Norway and Russia is limited. This study will describe and compare outpatient clinics treating substance use disorders in Arkhangelsk in Northwest Russia and in Bodø and Tromsø in Northern Norway on availability, accessibility and treated prevalence (patients treated in one year). The managers (N=3) of the outpatient clinics (N=3) were interviewed with the European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) and the International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC). The interviews were supplemented by e-mail and phone calls. The treatment in Arkhangelsk was mainly biologically oriented (medical), while a greater variety of methods was available in Bodø and Tromsø. The clinic in Russia was a drop-in clinic, while in Norway patients needed a referral to get an appointment in the clinic. Patients treated in Arkhangelsk (treated prevalence) was 1662, while in Bodø it was 233 and in Tromsø 220. The present study revealed great differences between the clinics involved in accessibility, availability and treated prevalence. Cultural traditions and budgeting of the mental health care system could explain some of the findings.

Correcting biases in psychiatric diagnostic practice in Northwest Russia: comparing the impact of a general educational program and a specific diagnostic training program.

BACKGROUND: A general education in psychiatry does not necessary lead to good diagnostic skills. Specific training programs in diagnostic coding are established to facilitate implementation of ICD-10 coding practices. However, studies comparing the impact of these two different educational approaches on diagnostic skills are lacking. The aim of the current study was to find out if a specific training program in diagnostic coding improves the diagnostic skills better than a general education program, and if a national bias in diagnostic patterns can be minimised by a specific training in diagnostic coding. METHODS: A pre post design study with two groups was carried in the county of Archangelsk, Russia. The control group (39 psychiatrists) took the required course (general educational program), while the intervention group (45 psychiatrists) were given a specific training in diagnostic coding. Their diagnostic skills before and after education were assessed using 12 written case-vignettes selected from the entire spectrum of psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: There was a significant improvement in diagnostic skills in both the intervention group and the control group. However, the intervention group improved significantly more than did the control group. The national bias was partly corrected in the intervention group but not to the same degree in the control group. When analyzing both groups together, among the background factors only the current working place impacted the outcome of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Establishing an internationally accepted diagnosis seems to be a special skill that requires specific training and needs to be an explicit part of the professional educational activities of psychiatrists. It does not appear that that skill is honed without specific training. The issue of national diagnostic biases should be taken into account in comparative cross-cultural studies of almost any character. The mechanisms of such biases are complex and need further consideration in future research. Future research should also address the question as to whether the observed improvement in diagnostic skills after specific training actually leads to changes in routine diagnostic practice.

Between health care and social security--psychiatric patients and the disability pension system in Norway and Russia.

BACKGROUND: The official statistics of persons with mental disorders who are granted disability pension (DP) in Russia and Norway indicate large differences between the countries. METHODS: This qualitative explorative hypothesis-generating study is based on text analysis of the laws, regulations and guidelines, and qualitative interviews of informants representing all the organisational elements of the DP systems in both countries. RESULTS: The DP application process is initiated much later in Norway than in Russia, where a 3 year occupational rehabilitation and adequate treatment is mandatory before DP is granted. In Russia, two instances are responsible for preparing of the medical certification for DP, a patients medical doctor (PD) and a clinical expert commission (CEC) while there is one in Norway (PD). In Russia, the Bureau of Medical-Social Expertise is responsible for evaluation and granting of DP. In Norway, the local social insurance offices (SIO) are responsible for the DP application. Decisions are taken collectively in Russia, while the Norwegian PD and SIO officer often take decisions alone. In Russia, the medical criterion is the decisive one, while rehabilitation and treatment criteria are given priority in Norway. The size of the DP in Norway is enough to cover of subsistences expenditure, while the Russian DP is less than the level required for minimum subsistence. CONCLUSION: There were noteworthy differences in the time frame, organisation model and process leading to a DP in the two countries. These differences may explain why so few patients with less severe mental disorders receive a DP in Russia. This fact, in combination with the size of the DP, may hamper reforms of the mental health care system in Russia.

The Barents project in psychiatry: a systematic comparative mental health services study between Northern Norway and Archangelsk County.

BACKGROUND: There is virtually no readily accessible systematically recorded evidence on how the organization of mental health services in Europe's largest country, Russia, may differ from other national systems. This study systematically compares the mental health services in Archangelsk County and Northern Norway using instruments developed for trans-cultural use. METHODS: The European Service Mapping Schedule (ESMS) and The International Classification of Mental Health Care (ICMHC) were used to describe: (i) resources, organisation and utilisation of the services; (ii) their decentralisation and differentiation; (iii) some interventions delivered by the mental health service units (n = 132) in both regions. RESULTS: The Norwegian services are more decentralised and differentiated, while the Russian services are largely hospital-based. The GPs are of considerable importance to the Norwegian services, functioning as gatekeepers-both centrally and peripherally. In contrast, the GP model is still poorly established in Archangelsk County. There are more units for long term stay in the Russian services than in Norway. General health care and taking over daily living activities are more organised in Archangelsk County, while psychopharmacological treatment and psychosocial interventions are more developed in Norway. CONCLUSION: The study has revealed several differences in resources, organisation and utilisation of the mental health services between the two compared areas. The very large variations indicate that underlying local patterns of service delivering must be further investigated and taken into account in the planning of the services development.

A comparative study of diagnostic practice in psychiatry in Northern Norway and Northwest Russia.

BACKGROUND: The co-operation between psychiatrists in Norway and Russia is increasing. The object of this study was to find out whether there were differences in diagnostic practice of psychiatrists in both countries, to look at the nature of the differences and to examine whether these differences affected diagnostic quality. METHOD: Thirty medical doctors working at psychiatric hospitals in both countries diagnosed 12 clinical case vignettes selected from a wide spectre of psychiatric disorders. RESULTS: The Russian clinicians used a larger range of diagnoses than the Norwegians. The Russians tended to diagnose schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like disorders in cases that presented psychotic syndromes, and somatoform disorders in cases that presented agoraphobia. The Norwegians tended to evaluate affective aspects in preference to psychotic symptoms in the case of schizoaffective disorder and overestimate the degree of depression. In general, the Russians had lower total score of correct answers than the Norwegians. CONCLUSION: In spite of the limitations due to minor differences in the data collection phase in the two countries, the study clearly demonstrates differences in diagnostic practice between the countries.