Background The recovery process of a psychiatric patient is related to his primary informal caregiver's style of coping with stress. There is insufficient literature on validations of instruments that measure coping styles in this population. Objective To adapt and validate a scale to measure coping strategies in primary informal caregivers. Method The adapted scale was based on the Extreme Coping Scale of López-Vázquez and Marván. Items from that scale were adapted for application to informal caregivers. The scale was administered to 122 primary informal caregivers of patients from two psychiatric institutions in Mexico. Psychometric analyses were performed to determine the scale's properties. Results The scale was composed of 20 items (six less than in the original scale) and two factors: (i) active coping (Cronbach's alpha = .837) and (ii) passive coping (Cronbach's alpha = .718). Discussion The findings are discussed in the light of the importance of studying the relationship between coping styles and the well-being of both informal caregivers and psychiatric patients. Implications for practice The scale could be used by health practitioners and researchers to generate strategies to support the family caregiver, as well as to measure the results of interventions.

No abstract

Early insulinization therapy is regarded as an efficient aid to improve long term control and quality of life in patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). Nevertheless, both patients and medical staff confront barriers in using this therapeutic tool. This study employs a qualitative approach to explore the barriers to early insulinization among medical staff from the public sector in the city of Xalapa, Veracruz, México. Between 2015 and 2016, in-depth interviews were conducted with general and specialist physicians offering primary health care to patients with DM2. The transcribed interviews were analyzed to extract and organize categories and subcategories of barriers among medical staff. These barriers were then grouped into three categories and exemplified with interview excerpts: barriers coming from the medical staff itself, barriers emerging from the doctor-patient interaction, and institutional barriers. Uses for the classification obtained are discussed, as are some of the solutions proposed by study participants.

No abstract

No abstract