Investing for population mental health in low and middle income countries—where and why?

Author:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: Policy makers intent on improving population mental health are required to make fundamental decisions on where to invest resources to achieve optimal outcomes. While research on the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions is critical to such choices, including clinical outcomes and return on investment, in the “real world” of policy making other concerns invariably also play a role. Politics, history, community awareness and demands for care, understanding of etiology, severity of condition and local circumstances are all critical. Policy makers should not merely rely on previous allocations, but need to take active decisions regarding the proportion of resources that should be allocated to particular interventions to achieve optimum outcomes. Given that scientific evidence is only one of the reasons informing such decisions, it is necessary to have clear and informed reasons for allocations and for making cases for new mental health investments. Main body: Investment allocations are unlikely to ever be an exact science. Alternatives therefore need to be rationally weighed up and reasoned decisions made based on this. Using prevalence data and the distribution of mental health resources in South Africa as a backdrop and proxy, investment proposals are made for LMICs with due consideration given to inter alia the social determinants of mental health, the needs and potential benefits of investments in people with severe verses common mental disorder, mental health promotion and disease prevention and to other areas that may impact on population mental health, such as management. Conclusion: Based on a range of arguments, it is proposed that mental health investments should follow the following approach. A mental health-in-all-policies method must be adopted. There should be no more than a 20% gap in the humane and human rights oriented care, treatment and rehabilitation of people with severe mental disorder. A minimum additional amount of 10% of the amount spent on severe mental disorder should be allocated to treating people with common mental disorder. Screening for mental disabilities should take place within all chronic care services. A minimum of 3% of the budget spent on severe mental disorder should be spent on promotion and prevention programmes. An additional 1% of the allocation for severe mental disorder should be provided for managing/driving the mental health programme.

This publication has 34 references indexed in Scilit: