Search results

1 – 5 of 5
Article
Publication date: 19 August 2009

Gottfried Asamoah, Sabu Varughese, Salman Mushtaq, Linda Butterworth, Abu Abraham and Jason Luty

Tackling discrimination, stigma and inequalities in mental health is a major UK government objective. Surveys have suggested that mental health services are institutionally…

Abstract

Tackling discrimination, stigma and inequalities in mental health is a major UK government objective. Surveys have suggested that mental health services are institutionally racist. Most research has focused on stigma associated with schizophrenia despite well‐documented prejudice against people with other psychiatric disorders.The aim of this study was to assess stigmatised attitudes towards people from two ethnic groups with substance use disorder and learning disability. The 20‐point Attitude to Mental Illness Questionnaire (AMIQ) was used to assess stigmatised attitudes. A representative panel of members of the general public were randomised to receive a questionnaire with a picture of a European or African‐Caribbean man and a fictitious description of alcoholism (first round) or Down's syndrome (second round) six months later. Results were received for over 198 subjects (response rate 79‐84%). There was no difference between the score for the African‐Caribbean vignette or the European vignette for either alcoholism (mean AMIQ score 0.43 standard error = 0.39; n = 100 Vs 0.98 standard error = 0.53; n = 110; effect size r = 0.11; p = 0.2059;) or learning disability (mean 1.71 standard error = 0.22; n = 100 Vs 1.98; standard error = 0.30; n = 98; effect size r = 0.07; p = 0.2559).The study showed that ethnic origin had no significant difference on stigmatised attitudes towards someone with alcoholism or learning disability. Although a larger study would have increased power to detect a statistically significant difference it seems unlikely that a difference of the observed magnitude would be of any practical relevance.

Details

Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social Care, vol. 2 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1757-0980

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 20 November 2009

Arghya Sarkhel, Linda Butterworth, Sabu Varughese, Harish Rao and Jason Luty

To establish the how far the leading psychiatric journals from the USA and UK show any favouritism to researchers from the journals' host countries. Retrospective review of…

118

Abstract

To establish the how far the leading psychiatric journals from the USA and UK show any favouritism to researchers from the journals' host countries. Retrospective review of original data‐based research reports published in 2006 from the five highest impact general psychiatric journals.British authors were 10 times more likely to appear as authors in two general psychiatry journals that are UK based than the three USA based journals (odds ratio=10.37 CI=8.95 to 12.02). American authors were 13 times more likely to publish in three leading three American psychiatry journals compared to British journals (odds ratio=14.27 CI=12.39 to 16.45). It is difficult to explain why researchers appear so much more likely to appear as authors in the host countries' journals other than by invoking some form of bias or favouritism in journals' editorial procedures. This creates a particular disadvantage for research outside the USA and UK.Research is funded and disseminated based on publications in high impact medical journals. If medical journals are xenophobic, that is they preferentially publish articles from their host countries, this severely disadvantages research in less developed countries, of which, many host no medical journals. For example simple, inexpensive research, such as the provision of non‐proprietary antidepressants and antipsychotics or measures to prevent the epidemic of alcohol and tobacco related problems in developed countries may be hugely beneficial to millions of people, but this is unlikely to be researched or disseminated if medical journals are xenophobic.

Details

Ethnicity and Inequalities in Health and Social Care, vol. 2 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1757-0980

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 17 June 2011

Salman Mushtaq, Joby Maucoli Easow, Vania Mendes and Jason Luty

Injectable opioid therapy (prescribing heroin for heroin addicts to inject) remains a highly controversial and expensive option. Recent research has shown significant benefits for…

198

Abstract

Purpose

Injectable opioid therapy (prescribing heroin for heroin addicts to inject) remains a highly controversial and expensive option. Recent research has shown significant benefits for this therapy in otherwise refractory patients. The aim of this paper is to assess the public opinion regarding heroin prescribing to addicts and to determine what effect the cost of this might have on their opinions.

Design/methodology/approach

Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire after reading a vignette which described current opioid maintenance therapy. Two vignettes were generated and the experimental group was randomised to receive the additional information that the cost of heroin prescribing was £15,000 per addict, per year.

Findings

Questionnaires were received from 187 subjects (response rate 74 percent). For the control group, 23 percent agreed and 58 percent disagreed with prescribing heroin to addicts (23 vs 62). For the experimental group, where the additional cost of £15,000 per addict was introduced into the vignette, 10 percent agreed and 75 percent disagreed (10 vs 71). The difference was statistically significant (p<0.05; χ2). In total, 58 percent of people were opposed to the idea that heroin should be prescribed to heroin addicts on the National Health Service but this rises to 75 percent when the annual cost of prescribed heroin (£15,000) is included.

Originality/value

This study supports an earlier survey that showed over 80 percent of the general public opposed the prescription of diamorphine to addicts even to reduce crime. Heroin prescribing remains controversial and lacks public support.

Details

Journal of Public Mental Health, vol. 10 no. 2
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-5729

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 10 July 2009

Jason Luty, Nasser El Hindy and Sujaa Rajagopal Arokiadass

Many countries have banned sales of alcoholic drinks from retail motor fuel outlets (known as petrol stations in the UK). This survey aims to determine what proportion of retail…

Abstract

Many countries have banned sales of alcoholic drinks from retail motor fuel outlets (known as petrol stations in the UK). This survey aims to determine what proportion of retail fuel outlets also sell alcoholic drinks in England and Wales. A cluster randomised telephone survey based on listings in a national online telephone directory was used to collect the data. Contact was made with 779 out of 1,012 outlets (a 77% response rate) in 20 areas in Britain, of which 241 (31%) sold alcoholic drinks as well as fuel. The findings from the survey reveal that the sale of alcohol at fuel outlets is common and may encourage drink driving.

Details

Journal of Public Mental Health, vol. 8 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-5729

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 1 December 2008

Joby Easow and Jason Luty

Abstract

Details

Drugs and Alcohol Today, vol. 8 no. 4
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1745-9265

1 – 5 of 5