Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Gráinne Collins, Eithne Fitzgerald and other participants in a consultative workshop at the National Disability Authority in June 2013 for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The report also benefitted from the comments of three anonymous reviewers and from our ESRI colleagues. We owe a debt of gratitude to the CSO (Central Statistics Office), for facilitating access to the research microdata file, and particularly to Gerry Walker, who has always been extremely helpful in responding to our questions. We thank the CSO interviewers for their professionalism and the respondents to the National Disability Survey for giving so generously of their time to make this research possible. Any remaining errors and omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Executive Summary Introduction Despite the growing international recognition that mental health accounts for about one third of all disabilities, this is an area which is under-researched in Ireland. This report draws on the National Disability Survey (NDS) conducted by the Central Statistics Office in 2006 to examine the circumstances of people with emotional, psychological and mental health (EPMH) disability in Ireland. The NDS has a large sample of over 4,000 people with EPMH disability, of whom over 3,000 are adults, living in private households who were interviewed directly. We drew on the NDS data to provide an overview of the situation of people with EPMH disability in Ireland and to address three research questions: What accounts for differences in the extent to which EPMH disabilities lead to difficulties in everyday activities? What factors are important in enabling people with EPMH disability to participate in social activities?
but none of the groups differed significantly from people whose EPMH disability was caused by depression. Table 2.14 Percentage of people with EPMH disability who ever avoid doing things because of the attitudes of other people. Ever avoid doing things % Gender Male 39% Female 39% Age Group 18-34 51% 35-44 47% 45-54 41%* 55-64 35%* 65-74 21%* 75 and over 24%* Base: Adults with EPMH disability living in private households and interviewed directly (not by proxy). ‘*’ indicates statistically significant difference between this age group and adults aged 18-34. Source: National Disability Survey 2006. 2.8 Health and stamina The health and stamina of people with a disability can have an important bearing on their participation in employment, family and social activities. Respondents were asked whether they would describe their general health and their stamina as very good, good, fair, bad or very bad. Table 2.15 shows that only 35 per cent of people with EPMH disability regard their general health as good or very good and 20 per cent regard it as bad or very bad. Only 29 per cent rate their stamina as very good or good and 28 per cent rate it as bad or very bad. The distribution is very similar to that for people with mobility & dexterity disability. This may seem surprising since the latter tend to be older, as we saw above in Table 2.2 showing the higher prevalence of mobility & dexterity disability among older adults. Table 2.15: General health and stamina of those with EPMH disability and mobility & dexterity disability - adults in private HH, not proxy interview EPMH disability Mobility & dexterity disability Health Good or very good 35% 35% Fair 46% 47% Bad or very Bad 20% 18%
show the figures for people with mobility & dexterity disability. Recall that people are considered to have an EPMH disability if they experience at least ‘just a little’ difficulty in everyday activities due the their disability, while those reporting mobility & dexterity problems experience at least a moderate level of difficulty. To make the comparison according to type of disability clearer, we also show the pattern for people with EPMH disability who have at least a moderate level of difficulty with everyday activities (that is, excluding those with ‘just a little’ difficulty). In fact, as we can see by comparing the first and second columns of figures, the differences in social participation are small between all of those with EPMH disability and the subgroup experiencing a moderate or greater level of difficulty with everyday activities. Among those with EPMH disability, just over half went to a social venue in the previous four weeks; nearly two thirds visited family or friends at their homes; almost three quarters had a visit from family or friends at home and more than eight in ten contacted family or friends by phone, text or email. If we consider the face-to-face forms of social participation (going to a social venue, visiting), 12 per cent of those with EPMH disability did not participate in these face-to-face forms of social participation in the previous four weeks. The figures show that the differences between those with EPMH disability and those with mobility & dexterity disability are small for most of the items, but that those with mobility & dexterity disability are more likely to be visited at home by family or friends (81 per cent vs. 73 per cent). As a result, the percentage of people with EPMH disability who did not participate in any face-to-face social activity in the previous four weeks is a little higher (12 per cent) than the figure for people with mobility & dexterity disability (9 per cent). Table 4.1: Social participation in the last four weeks among people with EPMH disability and mobility & dexterity disability Type of participation EPMH disability (any level of difficulty) EPMH disability, at least moderate level of difficulty Mobility & dexterity Went to social venue with family/friends 51% 50% 49% Visited family/friends at their homes 66% 64% 65% Family/friends visited you at home 73% 71% 81% Phoned, texted or emailed family/friends 82% 82% 83%
Horwitz, Allan V. and Wakefield, Jerome C. (2007) The Loss of Sadness: How Psychiatry Transformed Normal Sorrow into Depressive Disorder. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, http://www.questia.com/read/119897893. Horwitz; Allan V.; White, Helene Raskin; Howell-White, Sandra. (1996). ‘Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults.’ Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(4), 895–907. Retrieved from HSE Working Sub Group on Mental Health in Primary Care (2012) “Advancing the Shared Care Approach between Primary Care and Secondary Mental Health Services”. Dublin: Health Services Executive. Available at www.hse.ie. Hyman, Steven E. (2010) “The Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: The Problem of Reification.” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6:155–79. Kendell, R.E., (2005) ‘The Myth of Mental Illness’ pp. 29-48 in Schaler, Jeffret A., (ed.) Szasz Under Fire: The Psychiatric Abolitionist Faces His Critics. (1st ed.). Illinois: Open Court. Lingsoma, Susan (2008) “Invisible Impairments: Dilemmas of Concealment and Disclosure” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 10 (1):2-16. DOI: 10.1080/15017410701391567 Link, Bruce G.; Yang, Lawrence H.; Phelan, Jo C. and Collins, Pamela Y. (2004). Measuring Mental Illness Stigma. Schizophrenia Buletin, 30 (3): 511-541. Mayes, Rick and Horwitz, Allan V. (2005) DSM-III and the Revolution in the Classification of Mental Illness, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 41(3), 249–267 Mental Health Commission (2013) Mental health Commission Annual Report 2013 Including Report of the Inspectorate of mental Health Services. Mental Health Strategic Partnership (2013) Building Resilient Communities: Making every contact count for public mental health. Available at: