Dataset Information

Concordance of the Indian Mental Healthcare Act 2017 with the World Health Organization's Checklist on Mental Health Legislation.

ABSTRACT: India is revising its mental health legislation with the Indian Mental Healthcare Act 2017 (IMHA). When implemented, this legislation will apply to over 1.25 billion people. In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a Resource Book (WHO-RB) on mental health, human rights and legislation, including a checklist of 175 specific items to be addressed in mental health legislation or policy in individual countries. Even following the publication of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2006), the WHO-RB remains the most comprehensive checklist for mental health legislation available, rooted in UN and WHO documents and providing the most systematic, detailed framework for human rights analysis of mental health legislation. We sought to determine the extent to which the IMHA will bring Indian legislation in line with the WHO-RB.The IMHA and other relevant pieces of Indian legislation are compared to each of the items in the WHO-RB. We classify each item in a binary manner, as either concordant or not, and provide more nuanced detail in the text.The IMHA addresses 96/175 (55.4%) of the WHO-RB standards examined. When other relevant Indian legislation is taken into account, 118/175 (68.0%) of the standards are addressed in Indian law. Important areas of low concordance include the rights of families and carers, competence and guardianship, non-protesting patients and involuntary community treatment. The important legal constructs of advance directives, supported decision-making and nominated representatives are articulated in the Indian legislation and explored in this paper.In theory, the IMHA is a highly progressive piece of legislation, especially when compared to legislation in other jurisdictions subject to similar analysis. Along with the Indian Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, it will bring Indian law closely in line with the WHO-RB. Vague, opaque language is however, used in certain contentious areas; this may represent arrangement-focused rather than realisation-focused legislation, and lead to inadvertent limitation of certain rights. Finally, the WHO-RB checklist is an extremely useful tool for this kind of analysis; we recommend it is updated to reflect the CRPD and other relevant developments.

SUBMITTER: Duffy RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5563026 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health service providers are increasingly interested in patient perspectives. We examined rates and predictors of patient-reported satisfaction and perceived helpfulness in a cross-national general population survey of adults with 12-month DSM-IV disorders who saw a provider for help with their mental health.MethodsData were obtained from epidemiological surveys in the World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Respondents were asked about satisfaction with treatments received from up to 11 different types of providers (very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied) and helpfulness of the provider (a lot, some, a little, not at all). We modelled predictors of satisfaction and helpfulness using a dataset of patient-provider observations (n = 5,248).ResultsMost treatment was provided by general medical providers (37.4%), psychiatrists (18.4%) and psychologists (12.7%). Most patients were satisfied or very satisfied (65.9-87.5%, across provider) and helped a lot or some (64.4-90.3%). Spiritual advisors and healers were most often rated satisfactory and helpful. Social workers in human services settings were rated lowest on both dimensions. Patients also reported comparatively low satisfaction with general medical doctors and psychiatrists/psychologists and found general medical doctors less helpful than other providers. Men and students reported lower levels of satisfaction than women and nonstudents. Respondents with high education reported higher satisfaction and helpfulness than those with lower education. Type of mental disorder was unrelated to satisfaction but in some cases (depression, bipolar spectrum disorder, social phobia) was associated with low perceived helpfulness. Insurance was unrelated to either satisfaction or perceived helpfulness but in some cases was associated with elevated perceived helpfulness for a given level of satisfaction.ConclusionsSatisfaction with and perceived helpfulness of treatment varied as a function of type of provider, service setting, mental status, and socio-demographic variables. Invariably, caution is needed in combining data from multiple countries where there are cultural and service delivery variations. Even so, our findings underscore the utility of patient perspectives in treatment evaluation and may also be relevant in efforts to match patients to treatments.

Project description:BackgroundOccupational e-mental health (OeMH) interventions significantly reduce the burden of mental health conditions. The successful implementation of OeMH interventions is influenced by many implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators across contexts, which, however, are not systematically tracked. One of the reasons is that international consensus on documenting and reporting the implementation of OeMH interventions is lacking. There is a need for practical guidance on the key factors influencing the implementation of interventions that organizations should consider. Stakeholder consultations secure a valuable source of information about these key strategies, barriers, and facilitators that are relevant to successful implementation of OeMH interventions.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to develop a brief checklist to guide the implementation of OeMH interventions.MethodsBased on the results of a recently published systematic review, we drafted a comprehensive checklist with a wide set of strategies, barriers, and facilitators that were identified as relevant for the implementation of OeMH interventions. We then used a 2-stage stakeholder consultation process to refine the draft checklist to a brief and practical checklist comprising key implementation factors. In the first stage, stakeholders evaluated the relevance and feasibility of items on the draft checklist using a web-based survey. The list of items comprised 12 facilitators presented as statements addressing "elements that positively affect implementation" and 17 barriers presented as statements addressing "concerns toward implementation." If a strategy was deemed relevant, respondents were asked to rate it using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "very difficult to implement" to "very easy to implement." In the second stage, stakeholders were interviewed to elaborate on the most relevant barriers and facilitators shortlisted from the first stage. The interview mostly focused on the relevance and priority of strategies and factors affecting OeMH intervention implementation. In the interview, the stakeholders' responses to the open survey's questions were further explored. The final checklist included strategies ranked as relevant and feasible and the most relevant facilitators and barriers, which were endorsed during either the survey or the interviews.ResultsIn total, 26 stakeholders completed the web-based survey (response rate=24.8%) and 4 stakeholders participated in individual interviews. The OeMH intervention implementation checklist comprised 28 items, including 9 (32.1%) strategies, 8 (28.6%) barriers, and 11 (39.3%) facilitators. There was widespread agreement between findings from the survey and interviews, the most outstanding exception being the idea of proposing OeMH interventions as benefits for employees.ConclusionsThrough our 2-stage stakeholder consultation, we developed a brief checklist that provides organizations with a guide for the implementation of OeMH interventions. Future research should empirically validate the effectiveness and usefulness of the checklist.

Project description:ObjectivesComorbidity is a common feature of mental disorders. However, needs assessment surveys focus largely on individual disorders rather than on comorbidity even though the latter is more important for predicting suicidal thoughts and behaviors. In the current report, we take a step beyond this conventional approach by presenting data on the prevalence and correlates (sociodemographic factors, college-related factors, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors) of the main multivariate profiles of common comorbid Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV disorders among students participating in the first phase of the World Health Organization World Mental Health International College Student initiative.MethodA web-based mental health survey was administered to first year students in 19 colleges across eight countries (Australia, Belgium, Germany, Mexico, Northern Ireland, South Africa, Spain, United States; 45.5% pooled response rate) to screen for seven common DSM-IV mental disorders: major depression, mania/hypomania, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, alcohol use disorder, and drug use disorder. We focus on the 14,348 respondents who provided complete data; 38.4% screened positive for at least one 12-month disorder.ResultsMultivariate disorder profiles were detected using latent class analysis (LCA). The least common class (C1; 1.9% of students) was made up of students with high comorbidity (four or more disorders, the majority including mania/hypomania). The remaining 12-month cases had profiles of internalizing-externalizing comorbidity (C2; 5.8%), internalizing comorbidity (C3; 14.6%), and pure disorders (C4; 16.1%). The 1.9% of students in C1 had much higher prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors than other students. Specifically, 15.4% of students in C1 made a suicide attempt in the 12 months before the survey compared with 1.3-2.6% of students with disorders in C2-4, 0.2% of students with lifetime disorders but no 12-month disorders (C5), and 0.1% of students with no lifetime disorders (C6).ConclusionsIn line with prior research, comorbid mental disorders were common; however, sociodemographic correlates of LCA profiles were modest. The high level of comorbidity underscores the need to develop and test transdiagnostic approaches for treatment in college students.

Dataset Information

Concordance of the Indian Mental Healthcare Act 2017 with the World Health Organization's Checklist on Mental Health Legislation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets