Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: a share of the blame

one of the trickiest parts of treating mental illness is the sheer number of patients who are "non-compliant". that means that once their doctor prescribes a regimen of treatment and medication, it isn't followed and, unsurprisingly, the patient doesn't improve.

there are a lot of reasons given for the particularly high rate of non-compliance, including a lack of tangible results, intolerable side effects and the stigma of being on psychiatric medication and/ or being told that the problem is psychosomatic. other reasons include not being able to afford prescribed medications [particularly in the united states] and simple forgetfulness, particularly if the regimen is complicated.

these all seem pretty straightforward, but i was interested to find a slightly different perspective reading this article from 2007, that takes a slightly different perspective. while acknowledging that most patients are responsible for their own patterns of non-compliance, the article also apportions some of the responsibility to the doctors treating them, citing studies that show that the poorer the communication between doctor and patient, the less likely the patient is to take their medications.

it seems that simply having regular follow-ups helps in keeping patients compliant, and establishing an empathetic relationship is even more important. given how brief and automated most check-ups can be, this last part is a real challenge, because empathy requires careful listening and giving a the patient time to express themselves- something which is often difficult for people who have mental disorders.

with waiting times to see psychiatrists stretching into the years, making more time for individual patients is going to be a longer term project. but i am happy to see an acknowledgment that there is more at issue with non-compliance than just the patients' intransigence. and clearly, the way to deal with mentally ill patients is not simply to medicate them, but to treat them. there's an important difference.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

dj kali & mr. dna @ casa del popolo post-punk night

last night was a blast! a big thank you to dj tyg for letting us guest star on her monthly night, because we had a great time. my set was a little more reminiscent of the sets that i used to do at katacombes [i.e., less prone to strange meanderings than what you normally hear at the caustic lounge]. i actually invited someone to the night with the promise "don't worry, it'll be normal". which also gives you an idea of what to expect at the caustic lounge. behold my marketing genius.

mr. dna started off putting the "punk" into the night [which i think technically means i was responsible for the post, which doesn't sound quite so exciting]. i'd say that he definitely had the edge in the bouncy energy department.

many thanks to those who stopped in throughout the night to share in the tunes, the booze and the remarkably tasty nachos and a special thank you to the ska boss who stuck it out until the end of the night and gave our weary bones a ride home…

it continues... [part one]

so we're back at it with the democratic debates. last night saw cnn take their first crack at presenting ten candidates on one stage after msnbc led the charge last month. a lot of people were critical of the first debate because it seemed there were moments when moderators got such tunnel vision about keeping things moving that they stopped thinking about what was happening on stage. [the prime example being kamala harris having to insist that she be allowed to speak on the issue of racism, being the only person of colour on stage.] the other problem that many identified was that the time given to candidates wasn't even close to equal. i feel like cnn wasn't a lot better with the former, although they avoided any serious gaffes, and that they did an excellent job of fixing the latter. [that said, some of the outlying candidates might be wishing they hadn't had as much time as they did.] as with last time, i'll start off with a few general observations.

how importa…

making faces :: fall for all, part 2 [a seasonal colour analysis experiment]

well, installment one was the easy part: coming up with autumn looks for the autumn seasons. now we move into seasonal colour types that aren't as well-aligned with the typical autumn palette. first up, we deal with the winter seasons: dark, true and bright.

in colour analysis, each "parent" season- spring, summer, autumn, winter- overlap with each other season in one colour dimension- hue [warm/ cool], value [light/ dark] and chroma [saturated/ muted]. autumn is warm, dark and muted [relatively speaking], whereas winter is cool, dark and saturated. so you can see that the points of crossover in palettes, the places where you can emphasize autumn's attributes, is in the darker shades.

it's unsurprising that as fall transitions into winter, you get the darkest shades of all. we've seen the warmer equivalent in the dark autumn look from last time, so from there, as with all neutral seasons, we move from the warmer to the cooler cognate...