Creating and Facilitating Sustainable International Collaborations with Mental Health Professionals

In April 2003 the Alberta government integrated specialized mental health services, formerly organized independently, with the health regions, which are responsible for general health services. The objective of this article is to determine whether the transfer was associated with an increase or decrease in the share of resources in the region allocated to mental health care relative to total spending for health care. The measure of the share for mental health care is the total costs for mental health care resources as a percentage of total health care spending. Resources and spending examined were those that were actually or potentially under the regions' control. Annual costs for mental health services in the province were obtained for a seven-year period (fiscal year [FY] 2000 through FY 2006) from provincial utilization records for all residents in the province. Unit costs were assigned to each visit. The trend in the share measure was plotted for each year. The share for mental health care increased overall from FY 2000 (7.6%) to FY 2003 (8.2%), but returned to pre-FY 2003 levels in the three years after the transfer (7.6%). Despite concerns expressed before the transfer by federal and provincial reports over the level of expenditures devoted to mental health care, the integration of mental health services with other health services did not result in an increase of the share for mental health care.

Medical Clinic Characteristics and Access to Behavioral Health Services for Persons With HIV

The Impact of Patient Suicide on the Professional Reactions and Practices of Mental Health Caregivers and Social Workers

Mental Health in the Context of Health Disparities

Policy Recommendations to Promote Integrated Mental Health Care for Children and Youth.

Previous analyses demonstrated an elevated occurrence of perceived unmet need for mental health care among persons with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders in comparison with those with either disorder. This study built on previous work to examine these associations and underlying reasons in more detail. Secondary data analyses were performed on a subset of respondents to the 2002 Canadian Community Health Survey (unweighted N=4,052). Diagnostic algorithms classified respondents by past-year substance dependence and selected mood and anxiety disorders. Logistic regressions examined the associations between diagnoses and unmet need in the previous year, accounting for recent service use and potential predisposing, enabling, and need factors often associated with help seeking. Self-reported reasons underlying unmet need were also tabulated across diagnostic groups. Of persons with a disorder, 22% reported a 12-month unmet need for care. With controls for service use and other potential confounders, the odds of unmet need were significantly elevated among persons with co-occurring disorders (adjusted odds ratio=3.25; 95% confidence interval=1.96-5.37). Most commonly, the underlying reason involved a preference to self-manage symptoms or not getting around to seeking care, with some variation by diagnosis. The findings highlight potential problems for individuals with mental and substance use disorders in accessing services. The elevated occurrence of perceived unmet need appeared to be relatively less affected by contact with the health care system than by generalized distress and problem severity. Issues such as stigma, motivation, and satisfaction with past services may influence help-seeking patterns and perceptions of unmet need and should be examined in future work.

Mental health counseling in third-party reproduction in the United States: evaluation, psychoeducation, or ethical gatekeeping?

New hope for prison health in the UK

Lessons learned in developing community mental health care in Australasia and the South Pacific

WHO's Global Clinical Practice Network for mental health

Focus on Transformation: A Public Health Model of Mental Health for the 21st Century

In 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors formed the Task Force on Mental Health and charged it with developing strategies to improve the quality of child and adolescent mental health* services in primary care. The task force acknowledged early in its deliberations that enhancing the mental health care that pediatricians and other primary care clinicians† provide to children and adolescents will require systemic interventions at the national, state, and community levels to improve the financing of mental health care and access to mental health specialty resources. Systemic strategies toward achieving these improvements are the subject of other publications of the task force: “ Strategies for System Change in Children's Mental Health: A Chapter Action Kit ” (chapter action kit),1 “Improving Mental Health Services in Primary Care: Reducing Administrative and Financial Barriers to Access and Collaboration,”2 and “Enhancing Pediatric Mental Health Care: Strategies for Preparing a Community.”3 The task force also recognized that enhanced mental health practice will require competencies not currently achieved by many primary care clinicians; in the policy statement “The Future of Pediatrics: Mental Health Competencies for Pediatric Primary Care,”4 the task force collaborated with the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health to outline these competencies and propose strategies for achieving them. This report offers strategies for preparing the primary care practice itself for provision of enhanced mental health care services. The task force proposes incrementally applying chronic care principles to the care of children with mental health and substance abuse problems as primary care clinicians apply them to the care of children with chronic medical conditions such as asthma. Most primary care clinicians will find that significant gaps exist between their current practice and the proposed ideal. The task force offers guidance in … Address correspondence to Jane Meschan Foy, MD, Department of Pediatrics, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27157. E-mail: jmfoy{at}wfubmc.edu

BackgroundPatient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care.ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care.MethodsUsing Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR.ResultsAmong 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P<.001) of mental health care respondents (976/2008, 48.61%) reported perceiving errors in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents (1893/7086, 26.71%). Mental health care respondents also reported significantly higher odds (P<.001) of identifying omissions (758/2008, 37.75%) and offensive comments (729/2008, 36.3%) in their EHR compared with the somatic health care group (1867/7086, 26.35% and 826/7086, 11.66%, respectively). Mental health care respondents in hospital inpatient settings were more likely to identify errors (398/588, 67.7%; P<.001) and omissions (251/588, 42.7%; P<.001) than those in outpatient care (errors: 422/837, 50.4% and omissions: 336/837, 40.1%; P<.001) and primary care (errors: 32/100, 32% and omissions: 29/100, 29%; P<.001). Hospital inpatients also reported feeling more offended (344/588, 58.5%; P<.001) by certain content in their EHR compared with respondents in primary (21/100, 21%) and outpatient care (287/837, 34.3%) settings. Our qualitative findings showed that both mental and somatic health care respondents identified the most serious errors in their EHR in terms of medical history, communication, diagnosis, and medication.ConclusionsMost mental and somatic health care respondents showed a positive attitude toward PAEHRs. However, mental health care respondents, especially those with severe and chronic concerns, expressed a more critical attitude toward certain content in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents. A PAEHR can provide valuable information and foster trust, but it requires careful attention to the use of clinical terminology to ensure accurate, nonjudgmental documentation, especially for persons belonging to health care groups with unique sensitivities.

Recent progress in understanding the lifelong effects of early childhood adversities has clarified the need for an organized strategy to identify and intervene with children, adolescents, and families who may be at risk for maladaptive responses. Trauma-informed care (TIC) in child health care operationalizes the biological evidence of toxic stress with the insights of attachment and resilience to enhance health care delivery to mitigate the effects of trauma. The resulting pediatric health care delivery strategy promotes and restores resilience in children and adolescents, partners with families to support relational health, and reduces secondary trauma among pediatric health care clinicians. This policy statement summarizes what policy makers, legislators, and health care organizations need to consider in terms of infrastructure, resources, and financial support to facilitate the integration of TIC principles into all pediatric points of care. The accompanying clinical report describes the elements of TIC in the direct care of children, adolescents, and families and covers the spectrum from prevention to treatment. The recommendations in this statement and the clinical report build on other American Academy of Pediatrics policies that address the needs of special populations (such as children and adolescents in foster or kinship care, in immigrant and refugee families, or in poor or homeless families) and are congruent with American Academy of Pediatrics policies and technical reports concerning the role of pediatric clinicians in the promotion of lifelong health.Over the past 2 decades, basic science has explained how cumulative adverse childhood experiences in the relative absence of safe, stable, nurturing relationships (SSNRs)1 alter neurohormonal stress responses, gene expression, telomere length, brain development, and immunity, enabling researchers to elucidate how the body biologically embeds childhood trauma. Recent studies of toxic stress support assertions that the origins of lifelong health are in early childhood and that chronic stress in childhood strongly predicts adult health status.2,3 In the context of expanding evidence, pediatricians and others involved in community-based early childhood systems need strategies to mitigate the damaging effects of early childhood trauma and to promote resilience in children and families. Trauma-informed care (TIC) offers an organizing principle for pediatric practice that improves awareness of the spectrum of trauma-related symptoms, promotes an emotionally safe environment of care, and provides specific interventions to mitigate the effects of trauma exposure.4,5 This policy statement presents recommendations for policy makers, legislators, and health care organizations for implementation of TIC into pediatric health systems. The accompanying clinical report6 presents best-practice guidance for TIC in the direct care of children and adolescents.TIC is defined by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network as medical care in which all parties involved assess, recognize, and respond to the effects of traumatic stress on children, caregivers, and health care providers. TIC also includes attention to secondary traumatic stress (STS), the emotional strain that results when an individual, whether a health care worker or parent, hears about or witnesses the traumatic experiences, past or present, of children.Every pediatric encounter presents opportunities to promote family resilience and relational health.7 Informed by research in infant mental health and neurodevelopment, early relational health refers to the establishment of foundational relationships during the first 3 years of life that are central to successful physiologic, emotional, and moral development of the young child.8 Relational health, in a more general sense, is applicable to all age groups, is dyadic, and includes the capacity of both the child and caregiver to enter into a safe, secure, nurturing relationship allowing both to thrive.1,9,10 Strong foundational relationships support resilience and buffer stress in children, so they can be considered primary prevention of stress-related disturbance. Trauma-informed practices also support relational health and family resilience as important protective factors for those who have been exposed to persistent adversity or potentially traumatic events (see Fig 1).Human neuroendocrine–immune networks respond to internal and external sensors that identify danger and safety by activating in dangerous circumstances and deactivating when danger has subsided.11 Toxic stress responses occur with prolonged activation of the neuroendocrine–immune system and dysregulation of homeostasis (or allostasis if multiple systems are involved)12 in the absence of buffering by SSNRs. Toxic stress responses can result in lifelong impairments in physical, mental, and relational health.13The concept of toxic stress adds an important physiologic basis to the study of attachment and our understanding of trauma. Trauma is defined as an event, series of events, or circumstances experienced by a person as physically or emotionally harmful that can have long-lasting adverse effects on the person’s functioning and well-being (emotional, physical, or spiritual).14 Attachment theory describes the deep and enduring relationship between a child and adult caregiver that ideally provides a secure base from which the child can develop and explore the world.15Resilience is the dynamic process of adaptation to or despite significant adversity by using protective factors and learned skills to manage stressful circumstances.16 Resilience may allow a person to experience tolerable rather than toxic stress in response to adversity. Some characteristics of resilient children include strong executive functions (self-control of attention and impulses) and a strong personal identity, often related to a cultural or faith tradition.17 However, most important to both resilience and relational health is the capacity for young children to form at least one stable, caring, and supportive relationship.9,18Almost half of American children, or 34 million younger than 18 years, have faced at least one potentially traumatic early childhood experience.19 More than 1 in 7 adults report exposure during childhood to 4 or more adverse childhood experiences such as abuse, neglect, or other household adversity,20 including intimate partner violence or parental incarceration. Certain populations are at higher risk for trauma exposure, both physical and emotional. In surveys, poverty or financial stress is the most commonly reported childhood adversity, second only to loss of a parent.21,22 Exposure to divorce, child maltreatment, sexual abuse, intimate partner violence, bullying, parental mental illness, parental substance use problems, and community violence are also common.21 Specific populations at high risk for trauma include children and adolescents who identify as LGBTQ, have developmental or behavioral problems,23–25 are in foster or kinship care, are incarcerated, are living in deep poverty, or are immigrants. Potentially traumatic environmental and community-level conditions include economic stress, school or community violence, adverse experiences during and after immigration, natural disasters, pandemics, and mass-casualty events such as shootings or bombings.Racism is a common cross-cutting risk factor. Racial, ethnic, or religious bigotry magnifies the risk inherent to other special populations.26 Experiences ranging from hate crimes, police profiling, bullying, or microaggressions to covert discrimination are traumatic events and may be internalized as trauma by those who are victims, indirectly or directly, of the events.27,28 Historical trauma refers to the collective, transgenerational emotional and psychological injury of specific ethnic, racial, or cultural groups and their descendants who have experienced major events of oppression such as genocide, forced displacement, or slavery.29,30 Originally applied to children of the Holocaust, the concept is now applied to American Indian and Alaskan native people, African American people, Mexican American people, Japanese American people, and other groups of people who have experienced mass trauma.30 Investigators link historical “soul wounding” to current health and behavioral disorders including substance use disorder, domestic violence, and suicide, particularly in Indigenous communities.29,31 Children separated from families during immigration and/or detained in group facilities overseen by the Office of Refugee Resettlement are a recent special population at severe risk for long-term sequelae resulting from forced family separation.32,33In November 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed the emerging literature linking early childhood adversity with adult illnesses20,34 and analyzed survey data from 25 states over 2 years.3,35 Researchers concluded that reducing exposure to early childhood trauma and mitigating posttrauma effects would generally and significantly reduce adult morbidity and mortality. Using logistic regression modeling, they estimated potential reductions in incidence from low for obesity (1.7%) to high for heavy drinking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and depression (23.9%, 27.0%, and 44.1%, respectively). Recommendations included creating healthy communities, supporting SSNRs, and developing programs that apply primary (reducing exposure to childhood adversity) and secondary prevention (mitigating the effects of exposure) on the basis of principles of TIC.The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) presents a list of trauma-related disorders ranging from mild (adjustment disorder) to severe (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).36 Two additional categories, reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder, are specific to young children (please see the DSM-5 for complete diagnostic criteria). This nosology can be expanded to describe other presentations common in pediatric health care settings: developmental trauma disorder (DTD), pediatric medical traumatic stress (PMTS), and STS, the last being most relevant for health care workers, family members, and caregivers.The diagnosis of PTSD, as outlined in the current DSM-5, does not adequately describe the variable presentations of trauma manifestations in children across developmental stages.37 Children with complex trauma histories often exhibit heterogeneous developmental symptoms as well as difficulties with intimate relationships and with regulation of attention and impulse control.38 DTD is a proposed new diagnostic category that incorporates these differences and attempts to better describe the disturbances that occur in multiple developmental domains.39 The omission of DTD in the DSM-5 has been controversial,40 and the search for a better nosology of trauma, including DTD, is ongoing.41PMTS refers to the distress that patients and family members experience during hospitalization for a perceived life-threatening diagnosis or while living with or caring for individuals with life-altering chronic conditions.42 PMTS is underrecognized and rarely addressed despite its high prevalence.43,44 Up to 80% of ill or injured children and their families may have traumatic stress reactions after a life-threatening illness, injury, or procedure.45 In some surveys, up to 20% of parents of children admitted to a PICU develop PTSD within a few months.45 The suffering of family members and caregivers is often not addressed because of existing structural and reimbursement obstacles for multigenerational care.Although research on PMTS (and on pediatric postintensive care syndrome)46,47 is ongoing, researchers in 1 study found that approximately 10% of children developed PTSD 3 to 5 months after major surgery, and 28% developed posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) resulting in functional disability by parent report.48 PTSS can also occur after a severe injury or diagnosis of an illness such as cancer. In another family study, more than 10% of children had persistent functional impairment from PTSS at 6 weeks and 1 year after a potentially life-threatening injury or diagnosis, and 15% of mothers and 8% of fathers met criteria for PTSD at 1 year.49As described earlier, STS may occur in parents, other family members, and health care workers such as physicians, nurses, other hospital staff, first responders, and therapists. STS may have many of the same long-term effects on health that affect children exposed to trauma.50 Some health care workers may also develop disabling posttrauma symptoms that can interfere with quality of life both at work and home. Health care workers may have their own trauma histories that contribute to their reactions when exposed to the suffering of others. Nonclinical staff may also experience STS triggered by their own trauma histories, especially if the health care facility is located in an area with high adversity and nonclinical staff live in the vicinity.Preliminary evidence exists of a synergistic effect among STS, depression, and burnout in affected health care workers.51 STS in combination with burnout has been associated with a significant increase in the frequency of medical errors.52,53 Depression, anxiety, and suicide are greater risks for physicians than for the general population. In the United States, the rate of suicide among female physicians is 130% higher than among women who are not physicians; the rate for male physicians is 40% higher than for men who are not physicians.51 Burnout includes a spectrum of pathologic conditions that develop in the context of occupational stress and is almost twice as prevalent among physicians. The risk among nurses for burnout, depression, and STS is even higher. More than half of nurses reported suboptimal mental or physical health,54 approximately 35% reported a high degree of emotional exhaustion,55 and 18% reported depression in national surveys. Reports of posttraumatic stress among health care workers related to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic prompted worldwide concern for increased awareness and trauma-informed support for the mental health of all involved.56Core principles that can be helpful for policy development, outlined by the National Council on Behavioral Health (2019)57 are outlined in the following sections. Implementation of TIC at a practice level is described in detail in the accompanying clinical report.6The health care organization, workspace, and every encounter should be characterized by compassion, cultural humility, equity, collaboration, and safety for families and employees. An emotionally safe workplace includes acknowledgment of and particular attention to racial and gender discrimination, including implicit bias both in rendering care and workplace human relations. A review of health care settings from the viewpoints of patients, families, and staff can uncover practices, processes, or details in the environment that are potentially traumatizing.Hospital and health system leadership can annually review policies and procedures to ensure a safe work environment and setting to provide TIC, to reduce STS and burnout, and to promote sensitivity to the needs of trauma survivors.58 The alignment of financial and human capital resources to support an optimal health environment in all levels and locations of care is extremely important. Surveys designed to assess system readiness for implementation are available and can be adapted for pediatric health care settings.Surveillance and standardized screening to assess staff and patients for trauma exposure, symptoms, and strengths are important components of trauma-informed pediatric care. Universal screening, when implemented within the larger context of trauma-informed approaches and endorsed and supported by administrative leadership, reduces stigma and allows standardized responses such as time off or referral to an employee assistance program. Families and youth may be queried at the point of care, such as at the time of hospital admission. Formal screening should always be for the benefit of children and adolescents, avoid retraumatization, and identify protective as well as risk factors.59 More specific information about screening is included in the accompanying clinical report.6Involvement of families and youth in the development of TIC policies and practices, particularly regarding cultural, historical, and gender issues, is essential to building an environment of support and mutuality.14 Both formal and informal structures, such as Family Advisory Councils and family-centered rounds,60 create a cultural expectation of collaboration and enable the health care team to understand the strengths and vulnerabilities of individual families and of the populations served. When appropriate, tribal elders, traditional healers, and other faith community leaders can be included in developing individual care plans or institutional quality-improvement efforts. A whole-person, whole-family, whole-community perspective promotes improved awareness of how cultural backgrounds affect the perception of trauma, safety, and privacy.61,62TIC, from a public health perspective, includes primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention strategies. Primary prevention is a comprehensive approach that addresses social determinants of health (such as structural racism, poverty, and violence) that are often root causes of community trauma.63 Promotion of relational health and other resilience factors (such as strong executive function and self-efficacy) may be considered primary prevention.64 Following the fourth edition of Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, promotion of early childhood relational health is a core purpose of both pediatric primary care and early childhood education.65The National Child Traumatic Stress Network includes the promotion of child and family resilience, enhancement of protective factors, awareness of parent or caregiver trauma, and involvement of families in program development and evaluation as secondary prevention.66 Trauma-informed therapies (eg, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy) for symptomatic children and youth are considered tertiary prevention. These therapies are especially important for high-risk populations as identified earlier.67–70 Attachment-based dyadic therapies, such as parent–child interaction therapy, may serve to prevent development of persistent traumatic stress symptoms in high-risk families71 and may be considered both secondary and tertiary prevention.Recruitment and pre-employment practices may help discern the capacity for empathy among prospective employees.72 Training and education of all administrators, clinicians, and staff, both clinical and nonclinical, can promote the appreciation of the lifelong effects of trauma on child and adolescent development and family resilience and the implementation of trauma-aware practices. Continuous quality-improvement programs translate new knowledge and skills about childhood trauma into supervision, training, and patient care.Prevention of STS requires specific training of all staff to raise awareness, promote resilience, and explore the interaction among STS, burnout, depression, substance use, and professional quality of life. Supportive supervision and peer mentoring offer opportunities for all employees to reflect on their own trauma histories and to promote compassion, nonjudgmental attitudes and collaboration.73Trauma-informed health care systems establish and support collaborative, interdisciplinary relationships among community and public health agencies that serve children and adolescents to coordinate care for children, adolescents, and families exposed to trauma. Schools,74 juvenile justice programs,75 mental health professionals,76 home visiting services, child welfare systems,76 and foster care agencies77 are natural partners for pediatric health organizations in promoting community resilience. Many have established TIC programs. Community early intervention programs can help prevent and mitigate adversity and often have the advantage of caring for young children in their natural environment as home visitors.78–80Federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can continue and expand research to improve understanding of the developmental effects of trauma and the efficacy of specific interventions for historically resilient populations. Urgently needed are successful strategies to interrupt the intergenerational transfer of family violence. Strategies are also crucial to blunt the impact of historical trauma in communities of color and in American Indian and Alaskan native populations in the United States.30 It is particularly important to identify the origins of and successfully mitigate community violence, including racism, misogyny, and religious, ethnic, and cultural bias.State-level resources can be directed to implementation, dissemination, and evaluation of trauma-informed community programs, such as interagency and multigenerational strategies for opioid dependency. One example of a state interagency, multigenerational treatment program is Ohio START (Sobriety, Treatment and Reducing Trauma).81 States could develop a communication infrastructure to facilitate data sharing, improve interdisciplinary/interagency cooperation, and engage community partners including foundations and academic institutions.Federal guidelines can require that state Medicaid programs ensure comprehensive coverage for all children and adolescents and pregnant mothers without regard for legal or immigration status and mandate that coverage include mental health and substance use disorder services. Financing that increases access to high-quality, comprehensive, coordinated, culturally competent health care for high-risk populations is a high priority. Federal and state regulations can require all insurers, including Medicaid and private health insurers, to include coverage for TIC elements, including surveillance, screening, diagnosis, counseling, case management, follow-up, community collaboration, mental health care, and home visiting.In large health systems, leadership can align its mission and financing with the core elements of trauma-informed systems.82 Supporting TIC includes payment for trauma-informed, integrated mental health services, care coordination, rigorous case management, and seamless referral networks for intensive treatment. Prevention of secondary trauma, including care of affected health care workers, should be built into the mission of the health system.Academic health centers train and educate the next generation of physicians, nurses, and ancillary health personnel and can promote the transformation to TIC in all health settings through education, research, and advocacy. Children’s hospitals and health systems can model mental health integration83 and trauma-informed practices throughout all service lines.84 Because children’s hospitals embrace population health management and community advocacy, they may serve as the anchor institution collaborating with community agencies to address social adversity at the neighborhood level while promoting TIC services.85 Together with community pediatric care systems, academic health centers and children’s hospitals can integrate core elements of education into workforce training for health care workers and community partners such as first responders, child welfare workers, teachers, and juvenile justice personnel.86,87Deborah L. Shropshire, MD, FAAP

The World Health Organization (WHO) is revising the ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders, under the leadership of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse and within the framework of the overall revision framework as directed by the World Health Assembly. This article describes WHO's perspective and priorities for mental and behavioural disorders classification in ICD-11, based on the recommendations of the International Advisory Group for the Revision of ICD-10 Mental and Behavioural Disorders. The WHO considers that the classification should be developed in consultation with stakeholders, which include WHO member countries, multidisciplinary health professionals, and users of mental health services and their families. Attention to the cultural framework must be a key element in defining future classification concepts. Uses of the ICD that must be considered include clinical applications, research, teaching and training, health statistics, and public health. The Advisory Group has determined that the current revision represents a particular opportunity to improve the classification's clinical utility, particularly in global primary care settings where there is the greatest opportunity to identify people who need mental health treatment. Based on WHO's mission and constitution, the usefulness of the classification in helping WHO member countries, particularly low- and middle-income countries, to reduce the disease burden associated with mental disorders is among the highest priorities for the revision. This article describes the foundation provided by the recommendations of the Advisory Group for the current phase of work.