Abstract
Mark Tomlinson and Crick Lund analyze why mental health does not garner the international attention, political priority, or funding that it deserves, and offer suggestions to improve the visibility of global mental health.
Highlights
The lifetime prevalence of mental disorders has been estimated to be between 12.2% and 48.6% globally [1]
Shiffman and Smith [5] have developed a framework of analysis that attempts to understand why some global health initiatives are more successful in generating funding and political priority than others
More broadly a distinction between ‘‘internal’’ and ‘‘external’’ debates has yet to emerge in global mental health. ‘‘Internal’’ debates might include rigorous interrogation of the complex issues underlying the diagnosis of mental illness and the nosological systems that need to be developed to facilitate accurate, culturally valid diagnoses
Summary
The lifetime prevalence of mental disorders has been estimated to be between 12.2% and 48.6% globally [1]. Suicide is one of the leading causes of death globally for all ages [3]. Despite this burden, mental illness has far not achieved commensurate visibility, policy attention, or funding, in low- and middle-income countries [4]. Shiffman and Smith [5] have developed a framework of analysis that attempts to understand why some global health initiatives are more successful in generating funding and political priority than others. We will use the Shiffman and Smith framework to demonstrate that while some significant strides have been made, mental health still faces major challenges in establishing itself as a global initiative with meaningful political priority. We will conclude with a discussion of the way forward for the global mental health movement, and make some suggestions about how this aim can be furthered
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call