What Happens After the Demonstration Phase? The Sustainability of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First Programs for Homeless Persons with Mental Illness

This research examined the sustainability of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First (HF) programs for homeless persons with mental illness 2 years after the end of the demonstration phase of a large (more than 2000 participants enrolled), five‐site, randomized controlled trial. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 142 participants (key informants, HF staff, and persons with lived experience) to understand sustainability outcomes and factors that influenced those outcomes. Also, a self‐report HF fidelity measure was completed for nine HF programs that continued after the demonstration project. A cross‐site analysis was performed, using the five sites as case studies. The findings revealed that nine of the 12 HF programs (75%) were sustained, and that seven of the nine programs reported a high level of fidelity (achieving an overall score of 3.5 or higher on a 4‐point scale). The sites varied in terms of the level of systems integration and expansion of HF that were achieved. Factors that promoted or impeded sustainability were observed at multiple ecological levels: broad contextual (i.e., dissemination of research evidence, the policy context), community (i.e., partnerships, the presence of HF champions), organizational (i.e., leadership, ongoing training, and technical assistance), and individual (i.e., staff turnover, changes, and capacity). The findings are discussed in terms of the implementation science literature and their implications for how evidence‐based programs like HF can be sustained.     

On Disability and Illness. A Reply to Edwards

This paper is a reply to an article by Steven Edwards in a previous issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. In this paper Edwards discusses two types of problems which he finds to be inherent in my theory of disability, mainly as presented in my On the Nature of Health, Kluwer 1995. First, Edwards discerns a tension in my basic definition of health, a tension between my “subjectivistic” and my “objectivistic” aspirations in the definition. Second, he finds that my theory of disability does not allow for a distinction between disability due to illness or injury and disability which has no such (at least not immediate) background. In my answer to Edwards's arguments I claim that his first criticism must be due to a misunderstanding of my intentions. I find his second criticism to be more to the point. It raises important issues in the theory of health which partly concern our interpretation of the notion of illness. Edwards introduces the notion of capacity in order to separate between disability due to illness or injury and disability without such a background. In the last part of my paper I argue that this distinction, however, will not fulfil its purpose. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

EFFECTS OF RELAXATION TRAINING ON PULMONARY MECHANICS IN CHILDREN WITH ASTHMA1

An experiment, designed to overcome shortcomings in previous work, was conducted to investigate the potential symptomatic benefits of relaxation training in the treatment of asthma in children. Fourteen chronic, severely asthmatic children received three sessions in which they rested quietly, followed by five sessions of relaxation training, and finally three sessions of relaxing as trained previously. Pulmonary function was assessed, in a manner far more definitive than in previous studies, before and after each session, and three additional times at 30-minute intervals thereafter. Tension in the frontales muscles, heart and respiration rates, and skin temperature and conductance were also monitored. Heart rate and to some extent muscle tension results tended to confirm the attainment of relaxed states. However, the lung function results failed to substantiate the previous, preliminary findings of a clinically meaningful change in pulmonary function following relaxation. The status of relaxation in the treatment of asthma was discussed.     

Illness perceptions or recurrence risk perceptions: What comes first? A longitudinal cross-lagged examination among cardiac patients

Objectives: Previous research suggested that illness perceptions provide the basis for illness risk perceptions through an inductive reasoning process. This study aimed to assess the direction of relationships between illness and recurrence risk perceptions over time, among cardiac patients.

Design: A longitudinal study was conducted among 138 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Self-report questionnaires measured perceived recurrence risk and illness perceptions one day and one month after catheterisation.

Results: Cross-lagged Panel Model Analyses revealed that higher perceptions of timeline, consequences and emotional representations of illness at hospitalisation were associated with higher recurrence risk perceptions one month later. Perceived personal control was the only illness perception with bi-directional associations: higher perceived personal control at hospitalisation was associated with higher recurrence risk perceptions one month later; and higher recurrence risk perceptions at hospitalisation was associated with lower personal control one month later.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that the associations between recurrence risk and illness perceptions can only partly be explained by inductive reasoning. Halo effects and defensive processes are suggested as complementary explanations for the observed associations between risk and illness perceptions.     

Managing multiple chronic conditions in Singapore – Exploring the perspectives and experiences of family caregivers of patients with diabetes and end stage renal disease on haemodialysis

Objective: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is the commonest cause of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Despite increasing DM-ESRD prevalence and high dependency on care, there is a lack of literature on DM-ESRD caregivers. We sought to explore the perspectives and experiences of caregivers of patients with DM undergoing haemodialysis in Singapore.

Design: This study employed an exploratory, qualitative design comprising in-depth interviews with caregivers of DM-ESRD patients.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of 20 family caregivers (54.2 ± 12.6 years; 75% female) of DM-ESRD patients. Data were analysed using Thematic Analysis.

Results: Key caregiving challenges identified were managing diet, care recipients’ emotions and mobility dependence. Patients’ emotional reactions caused interpersonal conflicts and hindered treatment management. Difficulties in dietary management were linked to patients’ erratic appetite, caregivers’ lack/poor understanding of the dietary guidelines and caregivers’ low perceived competence. Limited resources in terms of social support and finances were also noted. Physical and psychological well-being and employment were adversely affected by caregiving role.

Conclusion: This study highlights distinctive aspects of the DM-ESRD caregiving experience, which impact on caregivers’ health and challenge care. Disease management programmes should be expanded to support caregivers in dealing with multimorbidity.