A new study published in PLOS Global Public Health finds that the global mental health field remains largely shaped by elite, Western, and medicalized voices.
The mixed-methods analysis, led by Farah Shiraz and colleagues from Denmark, Singapore, and the UK, reveals deep inequities in influence and calls for urgent reform to improve diversity, collaboration, and representation in global mental health policy.
“Our research question was: ‘Who are the most influential individual and institutional actors on global mental health, what are the key challenges in the design and implementation of mental health policies and interventions, and how can the field be promoted and diversified within the broader global health context?’”
“The most influential actors were predominantly male (55%) and in academia (60%), psychiatrists (38%) or psychologists (26%) and based in the US (22%) and UK (22%). Individuals working in funding government, private sector or membership organisations received less than 5% of total nomination, while similarly few individuals in neuroscience, nursing/social work, law, social sciences, policy or lived experiences advocacy were considered influential”
The study comes a decade after mental health was designated a global priority under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and amid increasing post-COVID calls for a more responsive and inclusive mental health paradigm.
Historically, the global mental health field has focused on treating severe psychiatric disorders, especially in low- and middle-income countries. But as awareness of systemic inequalities and the social determinants of distress grows, critics have raised concerns that academic and clinical elites continue to monopolize the conversation. Shiraz and her colleagues set out to map the landscape of influence and suggest ways to broaden participation and challenge dominant perspectives.
“Using social network analysis, and semi-structured interviews the authors found the need for critical engagement, greater synergy at global, national, and community levels, and equitable coalition of global mental health actors across professional, cultural and gender differences.”
You've landed on a MIA journalism article that is funded by MIA supporters. To read the full article, sign up as a MIA Supporter. All active donors get full access to all MIA content, and free passes to all Mad in America events.
Current MIA supporters can log in below.(If you can't afford to support MIA in this way, email us at [email protected] and we will provide you with access to all donor-supported content.)
“The most influential actors were predominantly male (55%) and in academia (60%), psychiatrists (38%) or psychologists (26%) and based in the US (22%) and UK (22%). Individuals working in funding government, private sector or membership organisations received less than 5% of total nomination, while similarly few individuals in neuroscience, nursing/social work, law, social sciences, policy or lived experiences advocacy were considered influential.”
Thanks to the British and UN, who both have different recommendations regarding the psychiatric neurotoxins, than the lunatic, American DSM deluded, “mental health professions,” that want to “maintain the status quo.”
“Historically, the global mental health field has focused on treating severe psychiatric disorders, especially in low- and middle-income countries.”
I think this statement is likely completely wrong, since the scientific fraud based “mental health professions” are only now trying to bring about a global “mental health” system, in “low- and middle-income” countries.
“critics have raised concerns that academic and clinical elites continue to monopolize the conversation.”
I agree.
“Participants suggested that if ministers only valued the opinions of mental health clinicians, missing relevant experience and knowledge from other professional disciplines (e.g. psychologists, anthropologists, nurses), they lacked the crucial nuance necessary to reframe mental health globally.”
I agree, and a nurse friend of mine, now confesses to be embarrassed by today’s American, actually the entirety of the medical system. But she’s particularly embarrassed by the US “mental health system,” within which, she did briefly work.
“the COVID-19 pandemic, as national crises required immediate response”
Now, it seems, most know this was untrue. But at least the Covid debacle was profitable for the gaslighting “mental health” industries (sarcasm).
There is a need “for more meaningful engagement from people with lived experience,” but instead, we are largely ignored, and silenced (not to mention, I was handed over a thievery contract … and this is a systemic psych industries’ problem … by a computer hacking, criminal, child abuse covering up psychologist, who I refused to hire).
“many participants warned that structural dominance by Western academic psychiatry risks reinforcing individualistic and medicalized models”
… an industry whose DSM “bible” was confessed to be “invalid” in 2013, by the head of NIMH.
“Creating informed guidance that includes discussion around the supports needed for quality management of daily stress, and addressing the mental health spectrum versus focusing only on disorders and medical interventions are calls to action made by Shiraz now.”
Who is Shiraz … “a city in southwest central Iran?”
I agree, “help bring[ing] about a fundamental shift in how we approach mental health care,” is greatly needed. And I thank those working within the “Criminal Justice and Sociology,” et al industries, for doing their part in speaking out against today’s “invalid,” mass murdering, psych industries.
Report comment