Prevalence of Psychiatric Morbidity and Alcohol use Disorders Among Adolescent Indigenous Tribals from Three Indian States

Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, Ahead of Print.
Background:Among the Indian adolescents, the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity and alcohol use disorders (AUD) are 7.3% and 1.3%. However, no separate data are available for indigenous tribal populations. This study estimated the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity and AUD and associated socio-demographic factors among adolescents in the tribal communities in three widely varying states in India.Methods:Using validated Indian versions of the MINI 6.0, MINI Kid 6.0, and ICD-10 criteria, we conducted a cross-sectional survey from January to May 2019 in three Indian sites: Valsad, Gujarat (western India); Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu (south India); and East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya (north-east India) on 623 indigenous tribal adolescents.Results:Aggregate prevalence of any psychiatric morbidity was 15.9% (95% CI: 13.1–19.0) (males: 13.6%, 95% CI: 10.0–18.1; females: 17.9%, 95% CI: 13.9–22.6), with site-wise statistically significant differences: Gujarat: 23.8% (95% CI: 18.1–30.2), Meghalaya: 17.1% (95% CI: 12.4–22.7), Tamil Nadu: 6.2% (95% CI: 3.2–10.5). The prevalence of diagnostic groups was mood disorders 6.4% (n = 40), neurotic- and stress-related disorders 9.1% (n = 57), phobic anxiety disorder 6.3% (n = 39), AUD 2.7% (n = 17), behavioral and emotional disorders 2.7% (n = 17), and obsessive-compulsive disorder 2.2% (n = 14). These differed across the sites.Conclusion:The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity in adolescent tribals is approximately twice the national average. The most common psychiatric morbidities reported are mood (affective) disorders, neurotic- and stress-related disorders, phobic anxiety disorder, AUD, behavioral and emotional disorders, andobsessive-compulsive disorder.

Exploring Psychiatrists’ Experiences During Transition from Mental Health Act, 1987 to Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 in Goa, India

Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, Ahead of Print.
Background:Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (MHCA) came into force on 29 May 2018. Goa State Mental Health Authority (GSMHA) notified the Mental Health Review Board on 8 February 2022, completing the important process of implementation of the act. The transition comes with challenges.Methods:A qualitative study was conducted with 18 practicing psychiatrists who had worked under Mental Health Act 1987 as well as MHCA 2017 through purposive sampling across Goa. Data was collected through individual interviews; analysis was done by Braune and Clarke’s framework of Thematic Analysis.Results:Eighteen psychiatrists participated: 4 private, 3 secondary and 11 from tertiary levels. The themes extracted were work during MHA 1987, transition, and after the implementation of MHCA 2017. Some participants reported difficulties, felt an increase in workload, and had negative emotions, while a few were neutral, indicating mixed perceptions.Conclusion:This study highlights the administrative struggles and moral dilemmas faced by psychiatrists in handling the new legislation. It’s imperative that the implementation of new act should be carried out with sufficient resource allocation and monitoring mechanisms.

Real World Studies: What They Are and What They Are Not

Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, Volume 45, Issue 5, Page 537-538, September 2023.
Patients are filtered by rigorously defined study selection criteria for recruitment into research; this is necessary to improve signal detection, improve internal validity, reduce study-related risks, and meet ethical standards. Research patients are assessed and managed in ways that differ from usual practice. So, neither patients nor the treatment environment resembles everyday patients treated in everyday practice. This diminishes the generalizability of study findings; that is, their external validity. There is, therefore, an increasing trend to conduct “real-world studies.” In this context, “real-world patients” are those who are not filtered by restrictive study selection criteria, and “real-world settings” are those in which patients are managed with few study-related guidelines and restrictions. The elephant in the room is that the glamour associated with such real-world studies is an illusion. This is because real-world patients in one real-world setting can differ widely from real-world patients in another real-world setting. So, even in real-world studies, we can only generalize study findings to the population from which the sample was drawn and the setting in which the sample was managed. As a final note, many assessments in research, such as computerized or pen-and-paper neuropsychological tests, are not real-world measures as are, for example, measures of activities of daily living or quality of life.