Previous Violent Events and Mental Health Outcomes in Guatemala

Objectives. We analyzed a probability sample of Guatemalans to determine if a relationship exists between previous violent events and development of mental health outcomes in various sociodemographic groups, as well as during and after the Guatemalan Civil War.Methods. We used regression modeling, an interaction test, and complex survey design adjustments to estimate prevalences and test potential relationships between previous violent events and mental health.Results. Many (20.6%) participants experienced at least 1 previous serious violent event. Witnessing someone severely injured or killed was the most common event. Depression was experienced by 4.2% of participants, with 6.5% experiencing anxiety, 6.4% an alcohol-related disorder, and 1.9% posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Persons who experienced violence during the war had 4.3 times the adjusted odds of alcohol-related disorders (P < .05) and 4.0 times the adjusted odds of PTSD (P < .05) compared with the postwar period. Women, indigenous Maya, and urban dwellers had greater odds of experiencing postviolence mental health outcomes.Conclusions. Violence that began during the civil war and continues today has had a significant effect on the mental health of Guatemalans. However, mental health outcomes resulting from violent events decreased in the postwar period, suggesting a nation in recovery.For 36 years Guatemala experienced a violent civil war in which over 200 000 civilians were killed, 440 villages destroyed, and more than 1 million Guatemalans displaced, both internally and into southern Mexico.1–3 Those killed included indigenous persons, laborers, academics, religious leaders, and others who were clearly noncombatants.3,4 In 1996, peace accords were signed between a number of rurally based guerrilla forces and Guatemala’s national army.Nearly three quarters of the people in the world’s poorest societies have recently been through a civil war or are still in one. The average civil war lasts approximately 5 years and can be embedded in a societal context that fuels the longevity of the conflict itself by marking it as culturally “normal.”5–7 Because of cultural normalization and numerous other factors, both within and outside of Guatemala, the Guatemalan Civil War far exceeded the length of the average national civil war and might have long-standing implications for the safety and health of Guatemalans today.Civil wars produce a legacy of postconflict violence and disease,7–12 and Guatemala is no exception. Today, the northern triangle of Central America, which includes Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, is described as the most violent area of the world outside of active theaters of war.3,13 Less than a decade after the civil war peace accords were signed in Guatemala, persistent violence reportedly resulted in the second highest rates of fear from armed crime in the world and the proliferation of more private security personnel than members of the regular army.3,14 Approximately at the same time, some 1500 Guatemalan Civil War refugees living in Mexico reported alarmingly high levels of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).15 The World Health Organization (WHO) also reported elevated alcohol use disorders in Guatemala in the years following the civil war.16 These indicators occurred alongside reports that 40% of the country continued to have no mental health services, leaving many Guatemalans, repatriated refugees, and affected citizens, who remained throughout the civil war without a key aspect of care on the road to national recovery.17In dealing with the effects of civil conflicts, such as recurring violence, PTSD, depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, and other mental health issues, postconflict societies like Guatemala face difficult decisions between enacting extraordinary military spending3,5 or provisions of enhanced social and public health services.7,18 However, policymakers in Guatemala (and internationally) have limited population-level and epidemiologic evidence19 with which to make such decisions. With this in mind, we completed the first national probability sample of the mental health of Guatemalans still living in Guatemala. We analyzed these survey data to obtain nationally representative estimates of the prevalence of select mental health problems in Guatemala,9,11,15 and to determine if a relationship existed between previous violent events and the development of subsequent mental health outcomes. We compared different sociodemographic groups,20–25 as well as the periods before and after the signing of the 1996 civil war peace accords.     

Are Veterans Getting Their Preferred Depression Treatment? A National Observational Study in the Veterans Health Administration

BackgroundPhysician responsiveness to patient preferences for depression treatment may improve treatment adherence and clinical outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine associations of patient treatment preferences with types of depression treatment received and treatment adherence among Veterans initiating depression treatment.DesignPatient self-report surveys at treatment initiation linked to medical records.SettingVeterans Health Administration (VA) clinics nationally, 2018–2020.ParticipantsA total of 2582 patients (76.7% male, mean age 48.7 years, 62.3% Non-Hispanic White)Main MeasuresPatient self-reported preferences for medication and psychotherapy on 0–10 self-anchoring visual analog scales (0=“completely unwilling”; 10=“completely willing”). Treatment receipt and adherence (refilling medications; attending 3+ psychotherapy sessions) over 3 months. Logistic regression models controlled for socio-demographics and geographic variables.Key ResultsMore patients reported strong preferences (10/10) for psychotherapy than medication (51.2% versus 36.7%, McNemar χ²₁=175.3, p<0.001). A total of 32.1% of patients who preferred (7–10/10) medication and 21.8% who preferred psychotherapy did not receive these treatments. Patients who strongly preferred medication were substantially more likely to receive medication than those who had strong negative preferences (odds ratios [OR]=17.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]=12.5–24.5). Compared with patients who had strong negative psychotherapy preferences, those with strong psychotherapy preferences were about twice as likely to receive psychotherapy (OR=1.9; 95% CI=1.0–3.5). Patients who strongly preferred psychotherapy were more likely to adhere to psychotherapy than those with strong negative preferences (OR=3.3; 95% CI=1.4–7.4). Treatment preferences were not associated with medication or combined treatment adherence. Patients in primary care settings had lower odds of receiving (but not adhering to) psychotherapy than patients in specialty mental health settings. Depression severity was not associated with treatment receipt or adherence.ConclusionsMismatches between treatment preferences and treatment type received were common and associated with worse treatment adherence for psychotherapy. Future research could examine ways to decrease mismatch between patient preferences and treatments received and potential effects on patient outcomes.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07136-2.KEY WORDS: major depression, treatment preferences, treatment adherence, Veterans     

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers: study protocol for the COVID-19 HEalth caRe wOrkErS (HEROES) study

Background

Preliminary country-specific reports suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has a negative impact on the mental health of the healthcare workforce. In this paper, we summarize the protocol of the COVID-19 HEalth caRe wOrkErS (HEROES) study, an ongoing, global initiative, aimed to describe and track longitudinal trajectories of mental health symptoms and disorders among health care workers at different phases of the pandemic across a wide range of countries in Latin America, Europe, Africa, Middle-East, and Asia.

Methods

Participants from various settings, including primary care clinics, hospitals, nursing homes, and mental health facilities, are being enrolled. In 26 countries, we are using a similar study design with harmonized measures to capture data on COVID-19 related exposures and variables of interest during two years of follow-up. Exposures include potential stressors related to working in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as sociodemographic and clinical factors. Primary outcomes of interest include mental health variables such as psychological distress, depressive symptoms, and posttraumatic stress disorders. Other domains of interest include potentially mediating or moderating influences such as workplace conditions, trust in the government, and the country’s income level.

Results

As of August 2021, ~ 34,000 health workers have been recruited. A general characterization of the recruited samples by sociodemographic and workplace variables is presented. Most participating countries have identified several health facilities where they can identify denominators and attain acceptable response rates. Of the 26 countries, 22 are collecting data and 2 plan to start shortly.

Conclusions

This is one of the most extensive global studies on the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, including a variety of countries with diverse economic realities and different levels of severity of pandemic and management. Moreover, unlike most previous studies, we included workers (clinical and non-clinical staff) in a wide range of settings.