Today, the World Health Organisation published one of the most in-depth reports on global mental health for over 20 years. 

Here's the overview:

Mental health is critically important to everyone, everywhere. All over the world, mental health needs are high but responses are insufficient and inadequate. The World Mental Health Report: Transforming Mental Health for All is designed to inspire and inform better mental health for everyone everywhere. Drawing on the latest evidence available, showcasing examples of good practice from around the world, and voicing people’s lived experience, it highlights why and where change is most needed and how it can best be achieved. It calls on all stakeholders to work together to deepen the value and commitment given to mental health, reshape the environments that influence mental health, and strengthen the systems that care for mental health.

14

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thank you for sharing this. For some reason, a lot of WHO's reports usually escape my radar.

[Linkpost] This is what Richard Horton (Editor-in-Chief at The Lancet) had to say about the report:

There are few truly watershed moments in medicine and global health. But the publication this month of WHO's World Mental Health Report is one such milestone. It is the agency's first major global foray into mental health for over two decades. Led by Dévora Kestel, who directs the Department of Mental Health and Substance Use in Geneva, WHO aims, in her words, for nothing less than “a transformation” in mental health. 20 years ago, mental health was completely ignored by development experts. There was no mention of mental health in the MDGs. But WHO's 2001 World Health Report on mental health, together with the launch of the Movement for Global Mental Health in 2007 (after publication of The Lancet's first global mental health series), created a foundation for more informed advocacy. Today, mental health is a core component of programmes to address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases. Improving mental health is a monitored objective of the SDGs. WHO's latest report seeks to sum up the state of mental health worldwide, to make the case for deeper change, and to encourage policy makers to reinvigorate mental health systems.

The most important part of the report is not the summary of research evidence. It is the glimpses of progress being made in countries. WHO accepts that no country can meet every aspiration to create a perfect mental health system. But every country can do something to make meaningful progress. In Chile in 2005, the government launched a universal health coverage package that included services for depression, bipolar disorder, alcohol and drug dependence, schizophrenia, and dementia. Mental health has been fully integrated into all levels of general health care. In Pakistan, the Pursukoon Zindagi (Peaceful Life) programme has improved access to mental health services for the poorest communities. Lay counsellors offer community based psychological treatments and referrals. By 2019, over 100 000 people had been screened for anxiety and depression. In Sri Lanka, the 1980 Control of Pesticides Act was a response to the finding that pesticide poisoning accounted for more than two-thirds of all suicides. By 2016, the annual suicide rate had fallen by more than 70%, with thousands of lives saved every year. These stories of success are truly inspirational.

But there is a huge gap in WHO's report. And it is a gap that potentially represents a fatal flaw in the agency's thinking. In one word, it is accountability. First, trying to provoke change by sharing examples of successful country mental health programmes is good. But it will amount to little, and certainly will not produce “transformation”, without a robust and independent mechanism to monitor and review progress in building mental health systems in countries. There is nothing in WHO's report about implementing a means for independent accountability of country governments. Second, there is an accountability gap concerning the structural determinants of mental health. WHO provides a compelling review of the importance of poverty, financial insecurity, income inequality, and social exclusion in shaping mental health. The value of education, safe and secure housing, measures to protect against discrimination, gender equality, and mental health care in prisons are all underlined. The effects of economic crises, public health and humanitarian emergencies (including COVID-19), migration and forced displacement, and the climate crisis are all acknowledged. But nowhere does WHO remind specific countries of their responsibilities to safeguard mental health by addressing these structural determinants. Hong Kong is praised for using sports to promote life skills for young people. But what of the effects of the government's brutal erasure of political freedoms across all sectors of society? Turkey is commended for scaling up care to Syrian refugees. But nowhere is the government held accountable for the atmosphere of fear created by the arbitrary arrest of opposition politicians and journalists, or for its homophobic rhetoric, or for its crackdown on civil society organisations. And Lebanon is cited for its guided self-help programme for depression. But WHO fails to point to the corruption of the country's political process, which is edging Lebanon towards becoming a failed state. WHO's World Mental Health Report deserves wide reading and recognition. But until the agency takes independent accountability of those with the power to influence mental health seriously, the promised transformation will die on an altar of empty eloquence.

Cool report! Thanks for sharing. 

Was there anything in the report that you or the Happier Lives Institute were particularly surprised by?

Thanks Abby! I haven't had a chance to go through it in detail yet but I'll aim to share some reflections sometime next week.

Thanks!  I was just curious, didn't expect a super in depth analysis. Although that would be super cool to see too :)

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would