Adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese and Latin-American Spanish and psychometric properties of the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4).

OBJECTIVE: To describe translation to Spanish and Portuguese and adaptation of the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale version 4 (MICA v4). METHODS: The questionnaire was administered to primary care physicians (PCPs) from four Latin-American countries, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Cuba. The validation process included four phases: 1) translation of the questionnaire to Spanish and Portuguese; 2) assessment of face validity; 3) assessment of reliability; and 4) evaluation of construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). RESULTS: The study sample comprised 427 PCPs. The mean age of the Spanish-speaking sample (n = 252) was 40.1 (S.D = 9.7) years and the mean age of the Portuguese-speaking sample (n = 150) was 40.2 (S.D = 10.9) years. Both models demonstrated "appropriate" internal reliability. Total omega was 0.91 for the Spanish-speaking sample and 0.89 for the Portuguese-speaking sample. The CFA of both questionnaires showed an appropriate fit for a three-factor model (Portuguese: CFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.913; RMSEA = 0.066; Spanish: CFI = 0.945; TLI = 0.935; RMSEA = 0.068). CONCLUSION: The Latin-American versions of the MICA v4 in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese have appropriate psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and are applicable to and acceptable in the Latin-American context. The instrument proved its validity for collecting data on stigmatizing attitudes among health professionals in different contexts and cultures.

Adaptation to Brazilian Portuguese and Latin-American Spanish and psychometric properties of the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4)

Abstract Objective To describe translation to Spanish and Portuguese and adaptation of the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale version 4 (MICA v4). Methods The questionnaire was administered to primary care physicians (PCPs) from four Latin-American countries, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, and Cuba. The validation process included four phases: 1) translation of the questionnaire to Spanish and Portuguese; 2) assessment of face validity; 3) assessment of reliability; and 4) evaluation of construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results The study sample comprised 427 PCPs. The mean age of the Spanish-speaking sample (n = 252) was 40.1 (S.D = 9.7) years and the mean age of the Portuguese-speaking sample (n = 150) was 40.2 (S.D = 10.9) years. Both models demonstrated "appropriate" internal reliability. Total omega was 0.91 for the Spanish-speaking sample and 0.89 for the Portuguese-speaking sample. The CFA of both questionnaires showed an appropriate fit for a three-factor model (Portuguese: CFI = 0.927; TLI = 0.913; RMSEA = 0.066; Spanish: CFI = 0.945; TLI = 0.935; RMSEA = 0.068). Conclusion The Latin-American versions of the MICA v4 in Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese have appropriate psychometric properties, good internal consistency, and are applicable to and acceptable in the Latin-American context. The instrument proved its validity for collecting data on stigmatizing attitudes among health professionals in different contexts and cultures.

Management of common mental disorders should take place in primary health or specialized care? Clinical decisions of psychiatrists from Latin American countries.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore clinical decisions of psychiatrists regarding the management of common mental disorders in primary care (PC) in four Latin Americans countries, through the application of clinical vignettes. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, we conducted a self-administered online questionnaire survey of psychiatrists from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, and Chile. The questionnaire covered sociodemographic and professional information. The psychiatrists' clinical decisions were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical PC cases of depression, anxiety, and somatization. RESULTS: 230 psychiatrists completed the online survey. Psychiatrists from Brazil were less likely to recognize depression as a mental disorder than those from Cuba (odds ratio (OR) = 0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.10 to 0.91, p < 0.04). Female gender (OR = 0.19, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.91, p < 0.02) and older age (OR = 0.92, 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97, p < 0.01) reduced the likelihood of agreement that depression cases should be treated by a Primary Care Physician (PCP). In the somatoform symptoms vignette, longer training duration increased the likelihood of agreement that treatment should be done by a psychiatrist instead of a PCP (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.37, p < 0.01). In the anxiety vignette, females (OR = 2.38, 95% CI, 1.10 to 5.13, p < 0.01) and participants from Bolivia (compared with Cubans, OR = 4.19, 95% CI, 1.22 to 14.42, p < 0.02) were more likely to consider that these patients should be treated by a psychiatrist instead of a PCP. DISCUSSION: Most psychiatrist respondents agreed that patients with depression should be treated by PCPs and that somatoform and anxiety cases should be treated by psychiatrists. These results show that psychiatrists consider that they, and not PCPs, should treat patients with common mental disorders, regardless of the evidence showing that common mental disorders can be treated by primary care physicians in PC.

Clinical decisions and stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health problems in primary care physicians from Latin American countries.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to investigate how doctors working in primary health care in Latin American address patients with common mental disorders and to investigate how stigma can affect their clinical decisions. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, we applied an online self-administered questionnaire to a sample of 550 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba and Chile. The questionnaire collected information about sociodemographic variables, training and experience with mental health care. Clinicians' stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health were measured using the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4). The clinical decisions of PCPs were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical cases of depression, anxiety and somatization. RESULTS: A total of 387 professionals completed the questionnaires (70.3% response rate). The 63.7% of the PCPs felt qualified to diagnose and treat people with common mental disorders. More than 90% of the PCPs from Bolivia, Cuba and Chile agreed to treat the patients presented in the three vignettes. We did not find significant differences between the four countries in the scores of the MICA v4 stigma levels, with a mean = 36.3 and SD = 8.3 for all four countries. Gender (p = .672), age (p = .171), training (p = .673) and years of experience (p = .28) were unrelated to stigma. In the two multivariate regression models, PCPs with high levels of stigma were more likely to refer them to a psychiatrist the patients with depression (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.07 p<0.05) and somatoform symptoms somatoform (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07, p<0.05) to a psychiatrist. DISCUSSION: The majority of PCPs in the four countries were inclined to treat patients with depression, anxiety and somatoform symptoms. PCPs with more levels of stigma were more likely to refer the patients with depression and somatoform symptoms to a psychiatrist. Stigmatizing attitudes towards mental disorders by PCPs might be important barriers for people with mental health problems to receive the treatment they need in primary care.

Stigmatizing attitudes of primary care professionals towards people with mental disorders: A systematic review.

Objective To examine stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders among primary care professionals and to identify potential factors related to stigmatizing attitudes through a systematic review. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Lilacs, IBECS, Index Psicologia, CUMED, MedCarib, Sec. Est. Saúde SP, WHOLIS, Hanseníase, LIS-Localizador de Informação em Saúde, PAHO, CVSO-Regional, and Latindex, through the Virtual Health Library portal ( http://www.bireme.br website) through to June 2017. The articles included in the review were summarized through a narrative synthesis. Results After applying eligibility criteria, 11 articles, out of 19.109 references identified, were included in the review. Primary care physicians do present stigmatizing attitudes towards patients with mental disorders and show more negative attitudes towards patients with schizophrenia than towards those with depression. Older and more experience doctors have more stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illness compared with younger and less-experienced doctors. Health-care providers who endorse more stigmatizing attitudes towards mental illness were likely to be more pessimistic about the patient's adherence to treatment. Conclusions Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders are common among physicians in primary care settings, particularly among older and more experienced doctors. Stigmatizing attitudes can act as an important barrier for patients to receive the treatment they need. The primary care physicians feel they need better preparation, training, and information to deal with and to treat mental illness, such as a user friendly and pragmatic classification system that addresses the high prevalence of mental disorders in primary care and community settings.