A 20-year mortality gap for men, and 15 years for women, is still experienced by people with mental illness in high-income countries. The combination of lifestyle risk factors, higher rates of ...unnatural deaths and poorer physical healthcare contribute to this scandal of premature mortality that contravenes international conventions for the 'right to health.'
We argue that the global burden of mental illness is underestimated and examine the reasons for under-estimation to identify five main causes: overlap between psychiatric and neurological disorders; ...the grouping of suicide and self-harm as a separate category; conflation of all chronic pain syndromes with musculoskeletal disorders; exclusion of personality disorders from disease burden calculations; and inadequate consideration of the contribution of severe mental illness to mortality from associated causes. Using published data, we estimate the disease burden for mental illness to show that the global burden of mental illness accounts for 32·4% of years lived with disability (YLDs) and 13·0% of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), instead of the earlier estimates suggesting 21·2% of YLDs and 7·1% of DALYs. Currently used approaches underestimate the burden of mental illness by more than a third. Our estimates place mental illness a distant first in global burden of disease in terms of YLDs, and level with cardiovascular and circulatory diseases in terms of DALYs. The unacceptable apathy of governments and funders of global health must be overcome to mitigate the human, social, and economic costs of mental illness.
Globally, more than 70% of people with mental illness receive no treatment from health care staff. Evidence suggests that factors increasing the likelihood of treatment avoidance or delay before ...presenting for care include (1) lack of knowledge to identify features of mental illnesses, (2) ignorance about how to access treatment, (3) prejudice against people who have mental illness, and (4) expectation of discrimination against people diagnosed with mental illness. In this article, we reviewed the evidence on whether large-scale anti-stigma campaigns could lead to increased levels of help seeking.
Summary Stigma and discrimination in relation to mental illnesses have been described as having worse consequences than the conditions themselves. Most medical literature in this area of research has ...been descriptive and has focused on attitudes towards people with mental illness rather than on interventions to reduce stigma. In this narrative Review, we summarise what is known globally from published systematic reviews and primary data on effective interventions intended to reduce mental-illness-related stigma or discrimination. The main findings emerging from this narrative overview are that: (1) at the population level there is a fairly consistent pattern of short-term benefits for positive attitude change, and some lesser evidence for knowledge improvement; (2) for people with mental illness, some group-level anti-stigma inventions show promise and merit further assessment; (3) for specific target groups, such as students, social-contact-based interventions usually achieve short-term (but less clearly long-term) attitudinal improvements, and less often produce knowledge gains; (4) this is a heterogeneous field of study with few strong study designs with large sample sizes; (5) research from low-income and middle-income countries is conspicuous by its relative absence; (6) caution needs to be exercised in not overgeneralising lessons from one target group to another; (7) there is a clear need for studies with longer-term follow-up to assess whether initial gains are sustained or attenuated, and whether booster doses of the intervention are needed to maintain progress; (8) few studies in any part of the world have focused on either the service user's perspective of stigma and discrimination or on the behaviour domain of behavioural change, either by people with or without mental illness in the complex processes of stigmatisation. We found that social contact is the most effective type of intervention to improve stigma-related knowledge and attitudes in the short term. However, the evidence for longer-term benefit of such social contact to reduce stigma is weak. In view of the magnitude of challenges that result from mental health stigma and discrimination, a concerted effort is needed to fund methodologically strong research that will provide robust evidence to support decisions on investment in interventions to reduce stigma.
This paper aims to give an overview of the key issues facing those who are in a position to influence the planning and provision of mental health systems, and who need to address questions of which ...staff, services and sectors to invest in, and for which patients. The paper considers in turn: a) definitions of community mental health care; b) a conceptual framework to use when evaluating the need for hospital and community mental health care; c) the potential for wider platforms, outside the health service, for mental health improvement, including schools and the workplace; d) data on how far community mental health services have been developed across different regions of the world; e) the need to develop in more detail models of community mental health services for low‐ and middle‐income countries which are directly based upon evidence for those countries; f) how to incorporate mental health practice within integrated models to identify and treat people with comorbid long‐term conditions; g) possible adverse effects of deinstitutionalization. We then present a series of ten recommendations for the future strengthening of health systems to support and treat people with mental illness.
Summary The burden of mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders increased by 41% between 1990 and 2010 and now accounts for one in every 10 lost years of health globally. This sobering ...statistic does not take into account the substantial excess mortality associated with these disorders or the social and economic consequences of MNS disorders on affected persons, their caregivers, and society. A wide variety of effective interventions, including drugs, psychological treatments, and social interventions, can prevent and treat MNS disorders. At the population-level platform of service delivery, best practices include legislative measures to restrict access to means of self-harm or suicide and to reduce the availability of and demand for alcohol. At the community-level platform, best practices include life-skills training in schools to build social and emotional competencies. At the health-care-level platform, we identify three delivery channels. Two of these delivery channels are especially relevant from a public health perspective: self-management (eg, web-based psychological therapy for depression and anxiety disorders) and primary care and community outreach (eg, non-specialist health worker delivering psychological and pharmacological management of selected disorders). The third delivery channel, hospital care, which includes specialist services for MNS disorders and first-level hospitals providing other types of services (such as general medicine, HIV, or paediatric care), play an important part for a smaller proportion of cases with severe, refractory, or emergency presentations and for the integration of mental health care in other health-care channels, respectively. The costs of providing a significantly scaled up package of specified cost-effective interventions for prioritised MNS disorders in low-income and lower-middle-income countries is estimated at US$3–4 per head of population per year. Since a substantial proportion of MNS disorders run a chronic and disabling course and adversely affect household welfare, intervention costs should largely be met by government through increased resource allocation and financial protection measures (rather than leaving households to pay out-of-pocket). Moreover, a policy of moving towards universal public finance can also be expected to lead to a far more equitable allocation of public health resources across income groups. Despite this evidence, less than 1% of development assistance for health and government spending on health in low-income and middle-income countries is allocated to the care of people with these disorders. Achieving the health gains associated with prioritised interventions will require not just financial resources, but committed and sustained efforts to address a range of other barriers (such as paucity of human resources, weak governance, and stigma). Ultimately, the goal is to massively increase opportunities for people with MNS disorders to access services without the prospect of discrimination or impoverishment and with the hope of attaining optimal health and social outcomes.
For targeted groups (medical students, trainee teachers, trainee head teachers, social inclusion officers), Education not Discrimination uses social contact to educate, change attitudes, and reduce ...discrimination.2-7 Time to Challenge aims to augment employers' knowledge of discrimination related to mental health with respect to employment and will help people take legal action against organisations that have discriminated. Every year from 2009 to 2011, we will assess knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour, using the UK's Department of Health's national public attitudes to mental illness survey.10 In collaboration with SHiFT,11 which commissioned this survey on attitudes, we have developed and added the mental health knowledge schedule and the reported and intended behaviour scale to pre-existing attitude questions.
In a Perspective article, Vikram Patel and Graham Thornicroft introduce a new series in
PLoS Medicine
on mental health disorders in low- and middle-income countries that reviews the evidence for ...packages of care for ADHD, alcohol misuse disorders, dementia, depression, epilepsy, and schizophrenia.
Assessing the outcomes of interventions in mental health care is both important and challenging. The aim of this paper is to advance the field of outcomes research by proposing a taxonomy of the ...decisions that clinicians and researchers need to consider when evaluating outcomes. Our taxonomy has eight components, framed as decisions: Whose outcome will be considered? Which scientific stage is being investigated? What outcome domain(s) matter? What level of assessment will be used? Will clinical and/or recovery outcomes be assessed? Whose perspective will be considered? Will deficits and/or strengths be the focus? Will invariant or individualized measures be preferred? We propose a future focus on understanding what matters most to people using mental health services, and on the use of measures rated by service users as the primary approach to evaluating outcome.
PDF
