Global psychiatry

Author(s):  
Paul Harrison ◽  
Philip Cowen ◽  
Tom Burns ◽  
Mina Fazel

‘Global psychiatry’ discusses the global mental health movement. Across the globe, and especially in low- and middle-income settings, there is a high prevalence of untreated psychiatric illness. In lower resourced settings there is often the need to address the added influence of poverty. The chapter discusses the question of how to scale up services and models, including using lay mental health workers and also integration of mental health care into primary health care settings to better meet the needs of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses across the globe. Four areas are discussed in more detail—the HIV/AIDS pandemic, perinatal mental illness, child and adolescent mental health, and humanitarian emergencies.

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 285-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Whitley

This paper introduces, describes and analyses the emerging concept of Global Mental Health (GMH). The birth of GMH can be traced to London, 2007, with the publication of a series of high-profile papers inThe Lancet. Since then, GMH has developed into a movement with proponents, adherents, opponents, an ideology and core activities. The stated aims of the Movement for GMH are ‘to improve services for people living with mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities worldwide, especially in low- and middle-income countries where effective services are often scarce’. GMH could be considered an attempt to right a historic wrong. During the colonial and post-colonial eras, the mental health of subject populations was accorded a very low priority. This was fuelled by scientific racism, which alleged that mental illness was uncommon in places such as Africa. As developing nations have made the epidemiological transition, the burden of mental illness has proportionately increased, with research suggesting a massive ‘treatment gap’ between those in need and those actually receiving formal mental health care. As such, much GMH research and action has been devoted to: (i) the identification and scale-up of cost-effective evidence-supported interventions that could be made more widely available; (ii) task-shifting of such intervention delivery to mental-health trained non-specialist Lay Health Workers. GMH has come under sustained critique. Critics suggest that GMH is colonial medicine come full circle, involving the top-down imposition of Western psychiatric models and solutions by Western-educated elites. These critiques suggest that GMH ignores the various indigenous modalities of healing present in non-Western cultures, which may be psychologically adaptive and curative. Relatedly, critics argue that GMH could be an unwitting Trojan horse for the mass medicalisation of people in developing countries, paving the way for exploitation by Big Pharma, while ignoring social determinants of health.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 01-14
Author(s):  
Michael Galvin

We are in an important moment for mental health treatment around the world, as many Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) – representing an increasing majority of the world’s population – are currently developing and scaling up services for the first time. Yet, research on Global Mental Health (GMH) best practices remains scattered and difficult to synthesize. This review aims to simplify existing GMH research on effective biomedical and psychosocial treatment approaches from both high-income countries and LMICs to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of existing interventions, based on the highest quality, up-to-date research. By understanding which treatments are most effective and why, we can begin to not only implement more effective practices, but guide the future of GMH research in the right directions. The purpose of this review is therefore to understand mental illness, what it is, how it was treated in the past, how it manifests differently around the globe, and how to best treat it. Ultimately, while psychosocial approaches are advised for patients with more mild to moderate disorders, medications and other biomedical approaches are recommended increasingly only for more severe cases. While significant evidence exists to justify the use of psychotropic medications for mental illness, their adverse effects indicate that psychosocial approaches should be prioritized as first line treatments, particularly for mild to moderate disorders. As one of the first to analyze this research, this review is useful not only for GMH scholars, but for practitioners and public health workers globally, as well.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 613-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ursula M. Read

AbstractThis paper explores the ways in which mental health workers think through the ethics of working with traditional and faith healers in Ghana. Despite reforms along the lines advocated by global mental health, including rights-based legislation and the expansion of community-based mental health care, such healers remain popular resources for treatment and mechanical restraint and other forms of coercion commonplace. As recommended in global mental health policy, mental health workers are urged to form collaborations with healers to prevent human rights abuses and promote psychiatric alternatives for treatment. However, precisely how such collaborations might be established is seldom described. This paper draws on ethnographic research to investigate how mental health workers approach working with healers and the moral imagination which informs their relationship. Through an analysis of trainee mental health workers’ encounters with a Prophet and his patients, the paper reveals how mental health workers attempt to negotiate the tensions between their professional duty of care, their Christian faith, and the authority of healers. I argue that, rather than enforcing legal prohibitions, mental health workers seek to avoid confrontation and manouver within existing hierarchies, thereby preserving sentiments of obligation and reciprocity within a shared moral landscape and established forms of sociality.


2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 61-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bibilola D. Oladeji ◽  
Oye Gureje

The brain drain of medical professionals from lower-income to higher-income countries contributes to the current inequity that characterises access to mental healthcare by those in need across the world and hinders efforts to scale up mental health services in resource-constrained settings, especially in Nigeria and other West African countries. The migration of skilled workers is driven by a combination of the globalisation of the labour market and the ability of highly resourced countries to attract and retain specialists from poorer countries. If we are to ameliorate the worldwide shortage of mental health professionals, we need to find innovative ways of attracting young doctors into psychiatric training in all countries. We must also introduce measures to improve health worker retention in low- and middle-income countries.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Mpango ◽  
Jasmine Kalha ◽  
Donat Shamba ◽  
Mary Ramesh ◽  
Fileuka Ngakongwa ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A recent editorial urged those working in global mental health to “change the conversation” on coronavirus disease (Covid-19) by putting more focus on the needs of people with severe mental health conditions. UPSIDES (Using Peer Support In Developing Empowering mental health Services) is a six-country consortium carrying out implementation research on peer support for people with severe mental health conditions in high- (Germany, Israel), lower middle- (India) and low-income (Tanzania, Uganda) settings. This commentary briefly outlines some of the key challenges faced by UPSIDES sites in low- and middle-income countries as a result of Covid-19, sharing early lessons that may also apply to other services seeking to address the needs of people with severe mental health conditions in similar contexts. Challenges and lessons learned The key take-away from experiences in India, Tanzania and Uganda is that inequalities in terms of access to mobile technologies, as well as to secure employment and benefits, put peer support workers in particularly vulnerable situations precisely when they and their peers are also at their most isolated. Establishing more resilient peer support services requires attention to the already precarious situation of people with severe mental health conditions in low-resource settings, even before a crisis like Covid-19 occurs. While it is essential to maintain contact with peer support workers and peers to whatever extent is possible remotely, alternatives to face-to-face delivery of psychosocial interventions are not always straightforward to implement and can make it more difficult to observe individuals’ reactions, talk about emotional issues and offer appropriate support. Conclusions In environments where mental health care was already heavily medicalized and mostly limited to medications issued by psychiatric institutions, Covid-19 threatens burgeoning efforts to pursue a more holistic and person-centered model of care for people with severe mental health conditions. As countries emerge from lockdown, those working in global mental health will need to redouble their efforts not only to make up for lost time and help individuals cope with the added stressors of Covid-19 in their communities, but also to regain lost ground in mental health care reform and in broader conversations about mental health in low-resource settings.


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne Larrier ◽  
Monica D. Allen ◽  
Irwin M.H. Larrier

Global mental health research is continuing to unearth the multiple systemic barriers that over 80% of the world’s population experiences in their search for cultural, contextual, and efficient mental health treatment and services. The widespread gaps and shortages in treatment, research, interventions, financial resources, and mental health care specialists are enduring and expansive thus leaving behind many communities and societies in low and middle income countries and high income countries. Whereas there are numerous approaches to these gaps, this article proposes a re-conceptualized approach to the promotion, practice, and intervention of mental health services locally and globally, with the Cultivating SEEDS System (CSS™) framework. This framework addresses two of the most prevalent barriers – the stigma associated with accessing mental health care resources, and the lack of mental health care professionals.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nkundimana Balthazar

The burden of mental health has become a great concern for public health as the diseases caused by mental health is ranking second worldwide. According to the HWO countries of Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) don’t allocate enough financial means to mental healthcare. The lack of will or interest in mental health in these countries causes different challenges in this sector. Rwanda as one of LMICs is not served on the challenges although it might have its particularities. This study aimed to explore the challenges encountered by Rwandan local mental health workers within and outside of their demanding work. Method: An interpretative qualitative mixed with quantitative design. The self-administrated questionnaire with open-ended questions, demographic data as well as qualitative data was systematically prepared, explained, and given to respondents. The questionnaire was completed by sixty mental health workers from various institutions with mental health in Rwanda. SPSS was used in quantitative data analysis while the main part of data used Thematic analysis for qualitative data analysis. Results: The main results immersed in themes that consist of the shortage of; salary, poverty of mental health seekers, culture, and beliefs toward mental health, training, and professional development of mental health works. The study concluded with a better understanding of challenges in mental health practice in Rwanda and the outcome could be used to decrease challenges for mental health professionals and sustain of the mental healthcare system in Rwanda.


1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-22
Author(s):  
John Stephens ◽  
Mark Prunty ◽  
Wojciech Falkowski

Recent questions have been raised regarding the development of policies by Trusts for the treatment of their locally resident staff outside the hospitals in which they work. A questionnaire was developed to elicit views of mental health care workers on this issue. Overwhelming agreement was found among a wide variety of staff groups on the need for provision of treatment options outside the local service. Considerable thought and planning are needed in the development of formal operational policies to ensure such a service is provided by all hospitals/Trusts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document