CDER Cross Discipline Team Leader Review Template 2015 Edition. Closure systems, and expiration dates associated with this Rx-to-OTC switch. Clinical Trials. In the 62 UCB-sponsored clinical studies, no deaths were reported in any levocetirizine-treated subjects. Postmarket 32 reports. There were no deaths. Prague Roommates. Free Prague Flatshares and Prague roommate listings. Find a flatmate in Prague, share an apartment! Flat share with an international roommate or a.

People with mental illness die decades earlier in our country when compared to the general public Most of this disparity is related to preventable and treatable chronic conditions, with many studies finding cancer as the second leading cause of death. Individual lifestyle factors, such as smoking or limited adherence to treatment, are often cited as highly significant issues in shaping risk among persons with mental illness. However, many contextual or systems-level factors exacerbate these individual factors and may fundamentally drive health disparities among people with mental illness. We conducted an integrative review in order to summarize the empirical literature on cancer prevention, screening, and treatment for people with mental illness. While multiple interventions are being developed and tested to address tobacco dependence and obesity in these populations, the evidence for effectiveness is quite limited, and essentially all prevention interventions focus at the individual level.

This review was able to find only one published article describing evidence-based interventions to promote cancer screening and improve cancer treatment in people with mental illness. Based on our review of the literature and the experience and expertise of the authors, we conclude each section with suggestions at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy level that may improve cancer prevention, screening, and treatment in people with mental illness.

Mental illness and health disparities Despite the high prevalence of mental illness among adults, only in the last decade has this population been recognized as experiencing significant health disparities, including both increased morbidity and mortality., Mental illness is exceedingly common, with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration statistics indicating almost 44 million adults (18.6%) had any mental illness in the last year, and of those, almost 10 million (4.1%) had a serious mental illness (SMI). Individuals with SMI - defined as a mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that results in substantial functional impairment –are particularly likely to experience significantly reduced life expectancy. A report by Parks et al (2006) raised national awareness by stating that people with SMI die decades earlier in our country, when compared to the general public,, Most of this disparity is related to preventable and treatable chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, with studies finding that, similar to the general population, cancer is the second leading cause of death., Multiple factors contribute to this excess morbidity and mortality including behavioral and lifestyle factors, socio-environmental circumstances, and access to and quality of medical care. However, more attention has been focused on promoting change on an individual level with less emphasis on the contextual inequities (e.g., food environments, poverty, discrimination) that drive much of the disparities. Mental Illness & Cancer The evidence to date from epidemiologic studies regarding mental illness and cancer is now abundant, complex, and conflicting. Reports regarding cancer incidence are particularly inconsistent, with studies finding the risk of cancer among individuals with mental illness to be higher, lower, or equivalent to that of the general population.

– A recent study comparing a state Medicaid cohort with SMI to the general US population revealed that total cancer incidence was 2.6 times higher in the SMI cohort. In contrast, studies such as Ji et al. (2013) reviewed a large Swedish cohort of people with schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives and found an overall decreased incidence rate of cancer in both people with schizophrenia and their first degree relatives. Adding to this complexity, findings tend to differ (but not necessarily in consistent directions) depending on whether studies control for behavioral risk factors, such as smoking, or whether they stratify by sex. For example, even within single psychiatric diagnostic categories, cancer risk patterns vary, with researchers noting, the potential for schizophrenia to serve as a protective factor for cancer,,, as well as a risk. Indeed, comparing studies with differing approaches to controlling for confounding serves to highlight the critical impact of multiple behavioral and environmental risk factors in this population.

In reality, the very issue of health disparities in this population is most likely due to the prevalence of modifiable risk factors., A deeper understanding of the upstream contribution to these risk factors provides the opportunity to develop more effective interventions and reduce health disparities. Overall, studies of incidence vary widely along many dimensions. This provides a multitude of rich data, but exacerbates the lack of consensus regarding the link between mental illness and cancer incidence, leading some researchers to conclude, “the epidemiological puzzle remains unsolved.”,p339 Others, however, suggest that higher quality studies (reflected by larger study samples, greater numbers of overall cases, and longitudinal data with higher person years of follow-up) provide a more consistent picture of higher risk, for example among persons with schizophrenia for breast cancer. Nevertheless, studies consistently find that cancer accounts for much of the disease burden of individuals with mental illness.

For example, a large prospective study of patients with schizophrenia revealed an all cause death rate nearly 4 times higher than the general population, with cancer as the second most common cause of death after suicide, and before cardiovascular disease. In contrast to the cancer incidence findings, many recent studies report increased cancer mortality rates in people with mental illness.,,, While the evidence is not unequivocal, findings more consistently point to a higher standardized mortality ratio within SMI populations.,, A variety of factors may contribute to higher mortality, including more advanced stage at presentation due to delayed diagnosis, co-morbidities that complicate treatment (including psychotropic and oncology drug interactions), poorer quality care, and reduced access to specialized treatment. While individual lifestyle factors, such as smoking or poor adherence to treatment, play a significant role in shaping risk among persons with mental illness, many contextual or systems-level factors exacerbate these individual factors. These contextual factors including lack of integration between mental health and medical care systems (as well as the complexity of navigating them), mental illness stigma and physician bias, as well as social circumstances (e.g., lower education, income, and social integration; greater unemployment, homelessness, and overall poorer quality housing and neighborhoods),, may fundamentally drive health disparities among people with SMI. Were it indeed the situation that cancer incidence is no greater in people with SMI, but case fatality is higher, the higher prevalence of commonly known cancer risk factors, such as tobacco use and obesity, is less likely to explain the higher mortality rates. This multitude of factors contributing to cancer risk among people with SMI presents a research and clinical challenge, but also multiple opportunities for intervention as well as a call to action.

This underserved and vulnerable population confronts a particularly challenging set of obstacles to receiving high quality care for all diseases, including cancer. Both understanding and modifying risk of cancer in people with serious mental illness and overcoming barriers to care define important public health and social justice goals. The purpose of this review is to evaluate and synthesize the available data in prevention, screening, and treatment of cancer in people with serious mental illness in order to provide further reconceptualization of this complex topic and provide a pragmatic approach to clinical care. We propose a modification of the ecological model as the underlying theoretical framework for this review in order to highlight the multiple contributing factors and points of intervention.

Theoretical framework There are many “ecological models” or multi-level frameworks designed to explicate the multiple levels that can affect health and health behavior.,, To a certain extent, these models arose in response to interventions focused at the individual level, which conceptualized health as largely determined by individual characteristics or attributes, with individuals bearing primary responsibility for health outcomes. These individual-level interventions have been criticized by some as “blaming the victim”, and can be particularly problematic for marginalized and stigmatized populations, such as those with experiences of mental illness, since they often fail to acknowledge the overwhelming environmental and societal barriers to good health. McLeroy is generally credited with the development of the well-known “Social Ecological Model,” (SEM) in his seminal piece, “An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs” (even though he himself did not use the term “social ecological model”).

As originally articulated, McLeroy’s SEM views health behavior as being determined on five levels: (1) Intrapersonal factors-characteristics of the individual such as knowledge, attitudes, behavior, self-concept, skills, etc. This includes the developmental history of the individual; (2) Interpersonal processes and primary groups-formal and informal social network and social support systems, including the family, work group, and friendship networks; (3) Institutional factors-social institutions with organizational characteristics, and formal (and informal) rules and regulations for operation; (4) Community factors-relationships among organizations, institutions, and informal networks within defined boundaries, and (5) Public policy-local, state, and national laws and policies. As demonstrated by epidemiological studies, cancer incidence and outcomes can be affected on many levels by competing factors.

Some factors, such as genetics, have been theorized to either increase or decrease, the risk of cancer in people with schizophrenia. Similarly, antipsychotic medications may have anti-tumor properties, but they may also contribute to risk of cancers such as breast and endometrial, which are hormonally regulated. Some behaviors, such as smoking and low physical activity, contribute to increased risk of many cancers, while low exposure to sunlight in institutional settings may decrease risk of skin cancer.

Health system issues can also be protective or harmful; for example, mental health agencies that facilitate healthcare for their population can result in increased rates of detection and treatment,, while the stigma encountered in the general medical system almost certainly contributes to increased morbidity and mortality. Using this multi-level framework(), this paper reviews cancer prevention, screening, and treatment among populations with mental illness, with special emphasis on disparities and potential underlying mechanisms. Each section concludes with recommendations for clinical practice in each area. Additionally, provides a summary of key recommendations for medical clinicians to improve cancer prevention screening and treatment in people with mental illness. As the following synthesis will demonstrate, evidence supporting effective interventions is quite limited.

Therefore, the clinical practice recommendations are based on a combination of evidence and the experience and expertise of the authors. Materials and Methods We conducted an integrative review in order to summarize the empirical literature on cancer prevention, screening, and treatment for people with mental illness. An integrative review differs from meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which generally combine evidence from a group of studies using a statistical or quasi-statistical approach to answer a particular question. Integrative reviews summarize evidence from studies with diverse methodologies (e.g., experimental and non-experimental studies) to synthesize the state of the science in a specific topic to guide evidence-based care., The topic of this manuscript is broad and there is a significant lack of randomized controlled trials, especially in screening and treatment.

Because of the complex issues facing the population and the clinicians who care for them, an integrative review provides a unique opportunity to synthesize multiple levels of evidence and opinion in order to provide practical guidelines for approaching these issues. Description of search strategy An experienced research librarian assisted LCW and KEH to develop a list of terms and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) that were searched in the following databases: 1) PubMed, 2) Scopus, 3) the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and 4) psychINFO. Exchange Pop3 6 0 Keygen Download. Lists the search terms and limits for each database.

We searched for articles that were published between 2005 and 2015, to coincide with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration’s (SAMSHA) national call to action to improve health and wellness in people with mental health and substance abuse disorders. We considered all study designs (including experimental, quasi-experimental, non-experimental, and qualitative studies), editorials, and reports. However, to be included in the review, articles needed to have a specific focus on populations whose mental illness preceded the diagnosis of cancer.

We excluded case reports, articles focusing only on cancer survivors, and articles that did not clearly specify pre-morbid psychiatric disease. To simplify the search strategy, we conducted separate searches for “prevention” “screening” and “treatment.” Search terms and results are shown in. Key Recommendations for Medical Clinicians to Improve Cancer Prevention, Screening, and Treatment in People with Mental Illness We also undertook hand searches of reference lists of relevant literature reviews. Lsi Cachecade Keygen Photoshop more. In total, 82 articles were identified using this approach. Authors LW, AS and AC reviewed articles and systematically abstracted article information into databases that summarized data collection and methods, sample and setting, results/data, and conclusions.

The majority of articles reviewed were cross-sectional studies (34%), randomized controlled trials (18%), or non-systematic reviews (11%). Prevention and risk factors This section reviews interventions intended to decrease cancer risk in people with mental illness, with a specific focus on overweight/obesity and tobacco use, which are leading causes of cancer cases in this population. Up to one-third of cancer cases in economically developed countries are related to overweight or obesity, physical inactivity, and/or poor nutrition. People with a current mental illness are almost twice as likely to be obese compared to those without a mental illness. An exacerbating factor is that up to 80% of people taking anti-psychotic medication experience antipsychotic induced weight gain. Further, mainstream weight loss interventions often do not address the numerous challenges faced by this population, including limited financial and social resources, and stigma.

Similarly, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the US and tobacco use accounts for at least 70% of all lung cancer deaths, and at least 30% of ALL cancer deaths. People with a current mental illness are more than twice as likely to smoke cigarettes compared to those without a mental illness., Prevalence estimates for smoking range from 70–85% for people with schizophrenia and 50–70% for people with bipolar disorder., Additionally, people with schizophrenia smoke more heavily, have more severe nicotine dependence, and have lower quit rates compared to the general population. Smoking disparities are also evident in rates of quitting tobacco use and an analysis of smoking trends from 2004–2011 indicated that smoking rates among people with mental illness declined very minimally. The underlying causes for higher rates of obesity and tobacco use in people with mental illness are complex and interact on multiple levels.

Among them are exposure to chronic stressors (e.g., stressful living environments triggering tobacco use and unhealthy eating habits), few financial resources (e.g., difficulties paying for tobacco treatment interventions or healthy food options), medication side-effects (e.g., directly leading to weight gain or triggering tobacco use to mask side effects), and “therapeutic nihilism” (e.g., providers’ doubting individuals’ abilities to engage in behavior change). Recognizing these alarming statistics, a significant number of obesity treatment/prevention and tobacco cessation intervention are being tested in populations with SMI.

Obesity related interventions In 2006, the National Institute of Mental Health released a meeting report which concluded that empirically-based interventions to address obesity in people with mental illness was not receiving adequate research attention. Since that time, many studies have been conducted on this topic. Interventions addressing obesity among persons with mental illness concentrate on two approaches: general interventions to promote weight loss as well as interventions to reduce anti-psychotic use weight gain.

These interventions can be behavioral, pharmacological, or both. There have been at least eight systematic reviews in the last decade looking at behavioral interventions to promote weight loss in people with SMI., –,,,including a recent Cochrane review. For the most part, these interventions consisted of group or individually based programs promoting changes in diet and/or physical activity without elements of cognitive and/or behavioral modification. All reviews noted issues with study design, methodological rigor, and reporting of statistically significant, but clinically insignificant weight loss (i.e., less than 5%–7% of initial weight). A notable exception is Daumit and colleagues’ (2013) 18-month tailored behavioral weight-loss intervention in adults with SMI which reported that 37.8% of people in the intervention group achieved statistically and clinically significant weight loss as compared with 22.7% of those in the control group (P=0.009).

This study was unique in that the weight loss program lasted 18 months, whereas the programs in other trials were generally less than 6 months. Based on their results, the authors hypothesized that perhaps “persons with serious mental illness take longer than those without serious mental illness to engage in an intervention and make requisite behavioral changes.” Similarly, Bartels notes in his review that more successful programs tended to be of longer duration and included both education and activity-based approaches, similar to findings in the general population. The data regarding the use of pharmacological agents for weight loss or prevention of weight loss, particularly metformin, are similarly limited. A recent randomized controlled trial in the Veterans Administration health system found that metformin was modestly effective in reducing weight in clinically stable, overweight outpatients with chronic schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder over 16 weeks. Like many other studies, however, it showed statistically significant weight loss, but not clinically significant weight loss, though findings suggested that benefits of metformin may continue with longer treatment. On a more encouraging note, an RCT by Wu et al specifically targeted weight gain in the context of first episode psychosis. Significantly fewer patients in the olanzapine plus metformin group increased their baseline weight by more than 7%, (which was the cutoff for clinically meaningful weight gain), as compared to patients in the olanzapine plus placebo group.

This study and other studies in the general population, suggest that metformin maybe more effective in younger populations. Given these findings, Hasnain concluded in his 2011 review that metformin therapy should be considered in 3 high risk groups: 1) obese patients with schizophrenia and evidence of glucose dysregulation, irrespective of antipsychotic drug treatment; 2) obese patients with schizophrenia and without current evidence of glucose dysregulation, but with a strong family history of diabetes; and 3) young adults with schizophrenia newly exposed to antipsychotic drugs who show a pattern of rapid weight gain and/or glucose dysregulation. Other pharmacological agents have been considered for use in weight management in patients taking antipsychotic drugs, including amantadine, reboxetine, sibutramine, and topiramate. However, there is less data for these agents and all can have significant side effects (such as gastrointestinal side effects) especially for people with mental illness taking other medications. Medication associated-weight gain is also a common clinical concern in patients with depression. Contributing factors include increased use of anti-psychotic medication in treatment-resistant depression and ongoing questions regarding the effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on weight. In the most comprehensive study to date, Blumenthal et al.

(2014) reported that when compared with citalopram (and other SSRIs), individuals treated with bupropion, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline had a significantly decreased rate of weight gain. However, the 12 month weight gain associated with citalopram was quite modest at 1.2 kg (SD +/− 5.3 kgs) with 16% of patients showing a weight gain greater than 7%. A recent qualitative study explored the contexts and barriers to health in people with SMI and remarked on “unhealthy local environments” including lack of available healthy food and safe places to exercise, as well as the preponderance of fast food. Notably, very few interventions were identified that addressed the “obesogenic environment” in which many people with mental illness live, as well as the challenges they face given their limited financial resources. A novel pilot RCT by Jean-Baptiste et al (2007) is a notable exception. In addition to a 16-week behavioral modification and physical activity curriculum, participants in the intervention group were provided with a specific listing of healthy foods they could purchase, for which they would be reimbursed up to twenty-five dollars a week.

The weekly reimbursement reinforced health food purchasing and at the same time served as a financial incentive for attendance. Participants in this pilot showed non-clinically significant weight loss, but remarkably, weight loss continued 6-months after the intervention. However, even this study was an individually focused intervention and did not address higher level issues in the “obesogenic environment.” In summary, the current data regarding weight management for people with mental illness is limited, with promising interventions by Daumit et al(2013) and Wu et al (2008).

Additional intervention studies are underway, such as that by Cabassa et al, examining the use of a peer-led group lifestyle modification program supportive housing agencies that provide both housing and individualized support services to people with SMI. Tobacco related interventions While multiple studies indicate that people with SMI want to quit smoking,,,, effective treatment is underutilized and there is a lack of population-specific smoking cessation programs. People with SMI may require specialized smoking cessation programs because of the complex interplay of social, psychiatric, and genetic factors that contribute to their high smoking rates. As in the general population, smoking cessation efforts for people with mental illness include some combination of behavior modification, nicotine replacement, and pharmacological therapy (buproprion or varenicline). The data on use of NRT only is limited by heterogeneity of trials and short follow-up periods. A potentially promising approach in this population is treatment with off-label high dose NRT (greater than one 21mg patch).

One small study compared high dose NRT (42mg) vs regular dose (21mg) in people with schizophrenia and found that high dose NRT was well tolerated, although the study failed to find a significant difference in abstinence rates between the 2 groups. A single arm study by Selbey et al. (2013) of people with psychiatric comorbidities using escalating doses of NRT found significant reductions in both cigarettes per day (mean decrease, 18.4 ± 11.5) confirmed by expired carbon monoxide (mean decrease, 13.5 ± 13.0) with no significant changes in plasma nicotine concentrations during the course of NRT dose titration. In this study, the mean NRT dose was 32.7 (SD, 16.4) mg/d (range, 7–56 mg/d).

The use of bupropion and varenicline in this population has been limited by theoretical and reported concerns of adverse neuropsychiatric events, including suicide, and initial safety studies did not include people with mental illness. The Federal Drug Administration has required a black box warning regarding the risk of serious adverse psychiatric events for both buprorion andvarenicline. Two Cochrane reviews recently examined studies involving pharmacological smoking cessation interventions among people with schizophrenia and depression.

Tsoi’s review confirms the importance of pharmacological therapy with bupropion to achieve tobacco cessation for people with schizophrenia. Van der Meer’s report, however, produced mixed findings, concluding that use of bupropion may increase long-term cessation in smokers with past depression, but paradoxically, there was no evidence to support the use of bupropion in smokers with current depression. All trials with bupropion monitored participants’ mental health during treatment and none reported adverse effects. With respect to varenicline, Gibbons and Mann (2013) reviewed data from randomized controlled trials and from a large Department of Defense (DOD) observational study to assess its efficacy. Their review of the evidence offered significant support for the superior efficacy of varenicline relative to both placebo and bupropion, in individuals with and without a recent history of a psychiatric disorder. Screening Studies generally show lower rates of cancer screening in people with schizophrenia or psychosis,,,,, even in systems providing free access to screening services. However, these studies are all either retrospective cross-sectional or case-control studies.

The majority focus on breast and cervical cancer screening, with a few considering colorectal cancer screening. The available data for women with depression is mixed, with essentially equal numbers of studies showing decreased rates,, or no differences in breast and cervical cancer screening,, and conflicting results for rates of colon cancer screening., Several studies note that women with depression access the healthcare system more frequently, and therefore in some settings, they may be offered more opportunities for preventive services. Weitlauf et al’s (2013) finding of equal rates of cervical cancer screening in women veterans with depression and women veterans without a psychiatric diagnosis, suggests that the VA healthcare environment may 'level the playing field' for those with psychiatric illness.,p. E157 Despite this conflicting evidence, a systematic literature review of cancer screening in women concluded that “lower cancer screening utilization persists across the spectrum of mental illness diagnosis and severity,” and noted that studies finding no differences were often limited by small, or less representative, samples. Notwithstanding the documented disparities, few interventions exist to increase screening rates for persons with SMI and, disappointingly, a recent Cochrane review found “no RCT evidence for any method of encouraging cancer screening uptake in people with SMI.”,p1 However, one RCT not mentioned in the Barley review was the Primary Care Access Referral, and Evaluation (PCARE) Study by Druss et al. In this study, nurse care managers followed a manualized or standardized semi-structured protocol to improve use of preventive and primary care services in people with SMI. At 12-month follow-up, the intervention group received an average of 58.7% of recommended preventive services, compared to 21.8% in the usual care group (p.

Treatment The majority of studies of cancer treatment in individuals with SMI have focused on individuals with cancer and schizophrenia or major depression; –,–,– several have examined cancer treatment across multiple psychiatric conditions., To date, this research has been observational and cross-sectional. These studies reveal numerous disparities for patients with SMI and cancer in diagnosis and time to treatment, receipt of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery; and clinical trial participation. Evidence of disparities is particularly strong for individuals with schizophrenia and other conditions that include psychosis.

One important barrier to achieving optimal cancer outcomes is delayed diagnosis. A study of Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)–Medicare linked data showed that individuals with mental illness (defined as mood disorders, psychotic disorders, dementia, substance abuse and dependence disorders, and other) and colon cancer are more likely to have un-staged colon cancer or diagnosis of colon cancer at autopsy. Another SEER-Medicare analysis revealed that patients with schizophrenia and non-small cell lung cancer are less likely to have appropriate evaluation. A study of Swedish adults with schizophrenia who died of cancer showed that those individuals were less likely to have a cancer diagnosis prior to death. One examination of women with major depression or anxiety in six Boston-area health centers found no association between these diagnoses and time to resolution of abnormal mammogram or Pap test results.

In general, patients with SMI, particularly schizophrenia, are less likely to receive appropriate chemotherapy, radiation therapy, or surgery. A study in Western Australia, with a dataset consisting of over 100,000 new cancer cases, found that individuals with mental illness received fewer sessions of chemotherapy in general and were less likely to receive surgery overall, as well as radiation therapy for certain cancer sites. Other studies similarly found that patients with a major mental illness are less likely to receive chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery for colon cancer, and are less likely to have surgery for oral cancer. Individuals with schizophrenia are less likely to receive stage-appropriate treatment for lung cancer, surgery for esophageal cancer, and referrals to clinical trials.

There are a few exceptions to this pattern of treatment disparities, most notably for chemotherapy rates among breast cancer patients with schizophrenia.,, Those with SMI are more likely to have treatment complications and poorer outcomes. Women with psychiatric diagnoses undergoing mastectomy are more likely to have complications and longer hospitalizations.

A study of women with Stage 0-II breast cancer found that those with a history of major depressive disorder had greater declines in physical functioning than those with no history of depression. Patients with schizophrenia have a higher rate of post-operative complications and post-surgery mortality. Finally, as previously noted, many studies have found that individuals with SMI have disproportionately higher cancer mortality rates.,,,,, Patient-, provider-, and systems-level factors all contribute to these disparities in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes. Patient-level factors include delays in help-seeking due to mental health symptoms, such as the disorganized thoughts, paranoia, and decreased pain sensitivity associated with schizophrenia. Conclusion Given that cancer disparities in people with mental illness may in large part result from differential access to the opportunities and social conditions that maximize health outcomes, addressing these disparities can be viewed as an issue of social justice.

This article serves to document these disparities and make recommendations for improvement based on available evidence and extensive clinical and public health experience. While multiple interventions are being developed and tested to address tobacco dependence and obesity in these populations, the evidence for effectiveness is quite limited, and essentially all prevention interventions focus at the individual level. This review was able to find only one published article describing a randomized controlled trial to promote cancer screening and improve cancer treatment in people with mental illness. We hope this article draws attention to the limitations of the medical model and the current the healthcare system to improve cancer control in this marginalized population. As the ecological model reflects, there are multiple causal pathways that have led to cancer disparities in people with mental illness. While clearly there are health behavior issues, “if we accept that it is unjust to hold people accountable for things over which they have little control, then they should be held responsible for engaging in healthy behaviors only when they have full access to the conditions that enable those behaviors.”,p61 Individual healthcare providers have significant opportunities to advocate for equal treatment of their patients with psychiatric disabilities.

Similarly, individual healthcare settings, such as primary care clinics, emergency departments, and mammography centers, can provide ongoing staff education to reduce stigma and improve the patient experience for this group. It is critical to think of physical health as an integral and reimbursable element of psychiatric care necessitating health screening, preventive and treatment efforts as part of treatment planning for psychiatric conditions, particularly early in the treatment of mental disorders (first episode psychosis and when initiating someone with a psychiatric medication). There are several large health policy measures that could improve cancer prevention and control in these individuals. This includes fully integrated medical and behavioral healthcare, particularly for people with serious mental illness, integrating preventive and treatment interventions in settings that commonly provide services to people with SMI (such as supportive housing) to bring health interventions to people doorsteps to reduce access and engagement barriers, and enhanced payment structures for organizations willing to take on care coordination for people with multiple, complex medical and psychiatric co-morbidities. Finally, advocating for anti-poverty measures, such as affordable housing, healthy food assistance programs, and programs that facilitate opportunities for mainstream community employment for people with disabilities, is what is ultimately needed to create the conditions that enable all people, especially those at highest risk, to be healthy.

In the broadest sense, health is integral for mental health and vice-versa. There is “no health without mental health” and no mental health without health.,161.