Barriers to improvement of mental health services in low-income and middle-income countries.

Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 10/2007; 370(9593):1164-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61263-X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite the publication of high-profile reports and promising activities in several countries, progress in mental health service development has been slow in most low-income and middle-income countries. We reviewed barriers to mental health service development through a qualitative survey of international mental health experts and leaders. Barriers include the prevailing public-health priority agenda and its effect on funding; the complexity of and resistance to decentralisation of mental health services; challenges to implementation of mental health care in primary-care settings; the low numbers and few types of workers who are trained and supervised in mental health care; and the frequent scarcity of public-health perspectives in mental health leadership. Many of the barriers to progress in improvement of mental health services can be overcome by generation of political will for the organisation of accessible and humane mental health care. Advocates for people with mental disorders will need to clarify and collaborate on their messages. Resistance to decentralisation of resources must be overcome, especially in many mental health professionals and hospital workers. Mental health investments in primary care are important but are unlikely to be sustained unless they are preceded or accompanied by the development of community mental health services, to allow for training, supervision, and continuous support for primary care workers. Mobilisation and recognition of non-formal resources in the community must be stepped up. Community members without formal professional training and people who have mental disorders and their family members, need to partake in advocacy and service delivery. Population-wide progress in access to humane mental health care will depend on substantially more attention to politics, leadership, planning, advocacy, and participation.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This paper identifies the key barriers to mental health policy implementation in Ghana and suggests ways of overcoming them. Method: The study used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitatively, the WHO Mental Health Policy and Plan Checklist and the WHO Mental Health Legislation Checklist were employed to analyse the content of mental health policy, plans and legislation in Ghana. Qualitative data was gathered using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with key stakeholders in mental health at the macro, meso and micro levels. These were used to identify barriers to the implementation of mental health policy, and steps to overcoming these. Results: Barriers to mental health policy implementation identified by participants include: low priority and lack of political commitment to mental health; limited human and financial resources: lack of intersectoral collaboration and consultation; inadequate policy dissemination; and an absence of research-based evidence to inform mental health policy. Suggested steps to overcoming the barriers include: revision of mental health policy and legislation; training and capacity development and wider consultation. Conclusion: These results call for well-articulated plans to address the barriers to the implementation of mental health policy in Ghana to reduce the burden associated with mental disorders.
    African Journal of Psychiatry 07/2010; 13(3):184-91. · 0.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). Methods and Findings Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient −0.11, 95% CI −0.20 to −0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication. Conclusion Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.
    PLoS ONE 09/2014; 9:e108114. · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mental health care is receiving increased attention in low-income countries with the availability of a wide range of effective evidence-based treatments for acute and chronic mental disorders amidst scarce resources. Availability of these treatments and competent human resources enables the use of a variety of interventions at several levels of care for persons with mental illness and makes it feasible to ensure observance of quality in the treatment approaches that go beyond institutionalisation. However, unlike developed countries which are endowed with many and relatively well-paid mental health specialists, low-income countries face a dire shortage of highly trained mental health professionals in addition to several other challenges. In light of this, there is need to re-assess the role of the few available psychiatrists, with a shift to new core tasks such as designing mental health care programmes that can be delivered by non-specialists, building their health system's capacity for delivering care, including supporting front-line health workers through support supervision, raising awareness on mental health and patients' rights in addition to promoting essential research. This requires a fundamental paradigm shift from the current training for mental health specialists to a public health oriented approach and providing incentives for community engagement.
    Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 02/2014; · 2.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 4, 2014