{"title":"Effective Treatment Interventions for Global Mental Health: An Analysis of Biomedical and Psychosocial Approaches in Use Today","authors":"M. Galvin","doi":"10.31579/2637-8892/076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We are in an important moment for mental health treatment around the world, as many Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) – representing an increasing majority of the world’s population – are currently developing and scaling up services for the first time. Yet, research on Global Mental Health (GMH) best practices remains scattered and difficult to synthesize. This review aims to simplify existing GMH research on effective biomedical and psychosocial treatment approaches from both high-income countries and LMICs to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of existing interventions, based on the highest quality, up-to-date research. By understanding which treatments are most effective and why, we can begin to not only implement more effective practices, but guide the future of GMH research in the right directions. The purpose of this review is therefore to understand mental illness, what it is, how it was treated in the past, how it manifests differently around the globe, and how to best treat it. Ultimately, while psychosocial approaches are advised for patients with more mild to moderate disorders, medications and other biomedical approaches are recommended increasingly only for more severe cases. While significant evidence exists to justify the use of psychotropic medications for mental illness, their adverse effects indicate that psychosocial approaches should be prioritized as first line treatments, particularly for mild to moderate disorders. As one of the first to analyze this research, this review is useful not only for GMH scholars, but for practitioners and public health workers globally, as well.","PeriodicalId":92947,"journal":{"name":"Psychology and mental health care : open access","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology and mental health care : open access","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31579/2637-8892/076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
We are in an important moment for mental health treatment around the world, as many Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) – representing an increasing majority of the world’s population – are currently developing and scaling up services for the first time. Yet, research on Global Mental Health (GMH) best practices remains scattered and difficult to synthesize. This review aims to simplify existing GMH research on effective biomedical and psychosocial treatment approaches from both high-income countries and LMICs to enable a more comprehensive understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of existing interventions, based on the highest quality, up-to-date research. By understanding which treatments are most effective and why, we can begin to not only implement more effective practices, but guide the future of GMH research in the right directions. The purpose of this review is therefore to understand mental illness, what it is, how it was treated in the past, how it manifests differently around the globe, and how to best treat it. Ultimately, while psychosocial approaches are advised for patients with more mild to moderate disorders, medications and other biomedical approaches are recommended increasingly only for more severe cases. While significant evidence exists to justify the use of psychotropic medications for mental illness, their adverse effects indicate that psychosocial approaches should be prioritized as first line treatments, particularly for mild to moderate disorders. As one of the first to analyze this research, this review is useful not only for GMH scholars, but for practitioners and public health workers globally, as well.