4.0 Article

Comorbidity Action in the North: a study of services for people with comorbid mental health and drug and alcohol disorders in the northern suburbs of Adelaide

期刊

Australasian Psychiatry
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 592-597

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1039856216657694

关键词

substance abuse; community; aboriginal; refugee; psychiatric; culture

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [LP110100087]
  2. Australian Research Council [LP110100087] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study identified barriers to and facilitators of mental health (MH) and alcohol and drug (AOD) comorbidity services, in order to drive service improvement. Method: Participatory action research enabled strong engagement with community services, including Aboriginal and refugee groups. Surveys, interviews and consultations were undertaken with clinicians and managers of MH, AOD and support services, consumers, families, community advocates and key service providers. Community participation occurred through consultation, advisory and working party meetings, focus groups and workshops. Results: Barriers included inadequate staff training and poor community and workforce knowledge about where to find help. Services for Aboriginal people, refugees, the elderly and youth were inadequate. Service fragmentation ('siloes') occurred through competitive short-term funding and frequent re-structuring Reliance on the local hospital emergency department was concerning. Consumer trust, an important element in engagement, was often lacking. Conclusions: Comorbidity should be core business of both MH and AOD services by providing consistent 'no wrong door' care. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) need longer funding cycles to promote stability and retain skilled workers. Comorbidity workforce training for government and NGO staff is required. Culturally appropriate comorbidity services are urgently needed. Despite the barriers, collaboration between clinicians/workers was valued.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据