Psychiatry in Primary Health Care: Indian Perspectives




© Springer India 2015
Savita Malhotra and Subho Chakrabarti (eds.)Developments in Psychiatry in India10.1007/978-81-322-1674-2_22


22. Psychiatry in Primary Health Care: Indian Perspectives



V. K. Sharma1, 2  


(1)
International Health Development, University of Chester, Chester, UK

(2)
Early Intervention in Psychosis Services, Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Trust, Chester, UK

 



 

V. K. Sharma



Keywords
PsychiatryPrimary careIndia


V.K. Sharma, Professor



1 Introduction



1.1 The Need for Primary Health Care


The Alma-Ata declaration of 1978 (Primary Health Care 1978) affirmed that health, including mental health and social well-being, is a fundamental human right, and primary health care is the key to attain this worldwide goal. The World Health Organization (WHO) in its World Health Report of 2008 stressed the urgent need to strengthen primary health care worldwide. The existing health delivery systems fail to meet the populations’ health care needs. People all over the world deserve a health system that is person centred and comprehensive, provides continuity, and is well integrated. A well-planned primary-care health system can meet all these objectives.


1.2 The Need for Integrating Mental Health in Primary Care and General Health Care


Mental health despite being a leading cause of disability worldwide is not well incorporated at the primary-care level even in the most developed countries. Patients with mental illnesses remain under-treated in both low- and high-income countries (Ormel et al. 2008; Sharma and Copeland 2009). Most people with mental illness seek help from their primary-care doctors and many of them present with physical symptoms. Health professionals in general often fail to recognise mental illnesses, especially when they coexist with physical conditions. It is worth noting that people with physical illness have a raised psychiatric morbidity. A cross-national study (Scott et al. 2009) of the joint effect of mental and physical conditions on disability found that co-morbidity exerts detrimental synergistic effects. It therefore recommended that clinicians need to deal with both mental and physical conditions giving them equal priority, if they are to manage co-morbidity and reduce disability. Overall, about one-third of patients admitted to medical wards also suffer from diagnosable mental illness ranging from acute organic brain syndrome, dementia, depression, anxiety, and psychosis and somatisation disorder to adjustment disorders and alcohol abuse. However, only a few of them undergo a mental health assessment or receive appropriate treatment. This is consistently reported in different parts of the world and among patients of all age groups (Sim et al. 2001; Hansen et al. 2001; Ames and Tuckwell 1994; Ndetei et al 2009). Untreated mental illness leads to longer times spent in the hospital with increased health care costs (Verbosky et al. 1993).


2 Barriers to Recognition and Treatment of Mental Illness in Primary Care


It is important to understand the reasons for poor recognition and treatment of mental disorders in general so that positive steps can be taken at all levels to address this issue effectively. The main barriers occur at three levels. Firstly, patients may find it hard to acknowledge that their problems are mental health related, especially if they are experiencing the problem for the first time (Olsson and Kennedy 2010). Equally, people find it hard to accept they have a mental illness, even if they acknowledge that they suffer from mental health problems. The findings of the National Co-morbidity Survey-Replication of people with common mental disorders in the USA (Mojtabai et al. 2010) concerning patients’ perceived barriers to mental health treatment revealed that (a) a low perceived need for treatment was the main reason for not seeking help especially among those who only had mild to moderate problems; (b) the majority of people with more severe disorders reported they wished to handle their problems on their own. About a quarter felt that the problem was not severe enough to seek help or would be likely to recover spontaneously; (c) Over one-third of respondents who dropped out of treatment altogether reported an “attitudinal/evaluative barrier” such as stigma, negative therapeutic experience, or poor quality of treatment.

Secondly, barriers occur at service provider level, mainly due to the primary-care and general health-care service providers’ attitudes towards mental illness, their knowledge, training, and experience of dealing generally with mental disorders. A meta-analysis of 36 studies (Cepoiu et al. 2008) of patients in a general hospital ward showed that barriers due to service providers’ included their concerns about the ill effects of potential patient stigma, their own time pressures, a belief that making a proper diagnosis of mental illness was burdensome, inadequate knowledge about diagnostic criteria or treatment options, general lack of a psychosocial orientation, and inadequate insight into the different cultural presentations of mental disorders. It could be concluded that general health professionals’ inadequate training in mental illness, recognition and management coupled with a lack of available user-friendly clinical facilities for the diagnosis, and treatment of mental disorders in general hospital settings could be an important service barrier.

The third barrier, the most important one occurs at an organisational level due to the State’s mental health related policies and those created by local systems. The priorities directed at mental health care are sometimes half-hearted, ranging from public health policy to the resources provided for care, for the “hard to reach” groups (Dowrick et al. 2009). Local system barriers include productivity pressures, limitations of third-party mental health coverage, restrictions on specialists, psychotropics, and psychotherapeutic care, lack of a systematic method for detecting and managing such patients, and inadequate continuity of care.


3 Primary Health Care in India



3.1 Current State


India has a complex system of health-care delivery ranging from largely unregulated indigenous practitioners to highly equipped private hospitals. People have the complete freedom to choose between these services depending on their beliefs, access to services, and their ability to pay for these services. The health delivery system is far from a comprehensive and well integrated one. In that context, the primary-care health service is largely underdeveloped in most parts of the country, and there is no universal health-care coverage for its population as compared to developed countries such as the UK, where primary care is the backbone of its National Health Service.

The 12th Five Year Plan (20122017) of the Planning Commission of India highlights the following weaknesses of health-care system:

Inadequate resources and coverage: Health-care services from the public and private sectors put together are quantitatively inadequate. The numbers of doctors is only half, and the numbers of nurses and auxiliaries merely one-fourth of the expected numbers required to provide adequate services. Rural areas are served even worse (Khandelwal et al. 2004).

Variable quality of care: The quality of service provided by qualified as well as many unqualified doctors and other health professionals varies considerably in both the public and private sector. Standards and regulatory systems are not properly defined, and as result the health-care services are poorly regulated.

Lack of affordability: The vast majority of the population is unable to pay the cost of adequate health care, especially in tertiary care. This is largely due to lack of extensive and adequately funded public health services. This results in people having to access private health services at a great personal expense. Even in public sector hospitals, patients may have to pay for their medicines in many places. The families are put through a very high financial burden, especially when affected by a chronic and severe illness. Only a small proportion of the population is covered by health insurance and that too fails to cover outpatients and expenses on medicines.

Future trends of healthcare needs: The problems are likely to worsen in future due to several factors e.g. rising life expectancy with increasing long-term medical conditions, increase in public awareness of treatment possibilities leading to rise in demand for quality medical care, increase in lifestyle related diseases such as diabetes and heart conditions with rising prosperity, and an increase in accidents and injuries.

Very low base of public expenditure on health: The public expenditure on health was on only 27 % of overall expenditure on health in 2008–2009. This is very low by any standards.

These enormous challenges have led the commission to formulate a health planning and delivery strategy under the 12th Five Year Plan that may take two or three planning cycles to implement. The new strategy focuses on universal health coverage. Addressing all the key issues, the strategy emphasises on the efficient and effective use of resources, a holistic approach of care delivery, public–private partnerships, and greater integration in health delivery systems. The health planning and delivery strategy also proposes a major role for primary health care in its national health package, i.e. a high quality primary care provided free at the point of delivery.

Good quality primary-care health services are lacking in both rural as well as urban communities in India. The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), (National Rural Health Mission 2010) a government funded public health system set up subcentres with health workers serving 5–6 villages, primary health centres with doctors (PHCs) for 30–40 villages, and community health centres (CHCs), based on a polyclinic model to serve about 100 villages. In addition private qualified and non-qualified health workers fill the gap to large extent. In urban areas, the lion’s share of diagnostic and treatment services is provided by private clinics and hospitals with limited training in primary care (Rao and Mant 2012).


4 Mental Health and Primary Care in India


Public mental health services are traditionally provided by mental health institutions or psychiatric departments of teaching hospitals. In recent years, an increasing number of psychiatrists are working at the level of district hospitals. At the same time, there are increasing numbers of private psychiatric clinics and hospitals, usually based in urban areas, which provide direct care to people with mental illnesses. Rural communities in India still have poor access to mental health services.

The Department of Psychiatry at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh is one of the leading centres in India that has provided vision and leadership in taking mental health to the community and primary-care level (Wig 2001). One of the recognised models is based on the Raipur Rani Project lead by Dr. Murthy and Dr. Wig, based at the psychiatry department of the PGIMER (Murthy and Wig 1983). In this model, primary-care health workers received training in mental health and were supported by a team of psychiatrists from the department, in detecting and treating patients in rural and urban centres, located in a district near the hospital (Ambala). The programme resulted in a large number of patients being recognised and treated for their mental illness in the community.

Murthy in a review of mental health initiatives in India from 1947 to 2010 (Wig 2000) described the progress made in developing community mental health services, especially in recent years (Murthy 2011). The National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) is the main framework to foster integration of mental health services in primary care, through its District Mental Health Programmes (DMHPs). A number of states have taken initiatives in introducing mental health training at the primary-care level through their DMHPs. Recently a primary-care project in Goa (Pereira et al. 2011) found that training lays counsellors in common mental disorders and linking them to primary-care physicians supported by a visiting psychiatrist assisted patients in accessing services for their mental health problems. This also helped in integrating mental health in general health care at the primary-care level.

Rao and Mant (2012) in their recent review of strengthening primary care in India sharing the experience of the National Health Service in the UK recommended that such services are best delivered by a multidisciplinary team of professionals. Multi-skilling (training individuals to perform tasks within their capacity, but beyond their traditional professional roles) allows the available workforce in the team to be deployed most efficiently. Enhancing skills of frontline health workers in diagnosing and treating people with mental illness at primary-care level is important part of this multi-skilling process.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Dec 3, 2016 | Posted by in PSYCHOLOGY | Comments Off on Psychiatry in Primary Health Care: Indian Perspectives

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access