心理健康治疗途径:经验、假设和公众舆论。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jake Haselswerdt
{"title":"心理健康治疗途径:经验、假设和公众舆论。","authors":"Jake Haselswerdt","doi":"10.1111/1468-0009.12726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Policy Points Policymakers should consider both material (e.g., cost) and attitudinal (e.g., skepticism) barriers to mental health treatment access. Public support for government action on mental health is high but varies based on experience-based and hypothetical beliefs about barriers to treatment. Appeals to personal experience and perspective-taking may be successful in building support for government action on mental health.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>Mental health problems represent a major public health issue for the United States, and access to mental health treatment is both inadequate and unevenly distributed. There is a strong justification for government action on mental health treatment, but it is unclear whether there is a political constituency for such action. Existing work suggests that stigma and othering of people with mental illnesses contributes to reduced support for intervention. I expand on the existing literature by focusing on mental health as an issue that may apply to Americans' own lives rather than only to a stigmatized outgroup.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using original questions on a nationally representative 2023 survey of 1,000 American adults, I measured agreement with statements about barriers to mental health treatment access that respondents have experienced or, if they have not sought treatment, their hypothetical assessment of these barriers. I also measured their support for statements in favor of change to address mental health. I analyzed the demographic and political correlates of agreement with the barrier statements and used regressions to examine their possible causal effect on support for change.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Agreement with statements about access barriers follows expected patterns in some cases (e.g., socioeconomic status) but not in others (e.g., race/ethnicity). I also documented a notable partisan and ideological divide in these experiences and beliefs. I found that Americans who agreed that material factors are a barrier to access were more supportive of action on mental health, whereas those who agreed with statements suggesting discomfort or skepticism were less supportive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that personal experience and perspective-taking should be integrated into the study of public opinion on mental health, complementing existing work on stigma and othering. Appeals to experience and perspective-taking may be a successful strategy for building public support for action on mental health.</p>","PeriodicalId":49810,"journal":{"name":"Milbank Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mental Health Treatment Access: Experience, Hypotheticals, and Public Opinion.\",\"authors\":\"Jake Haselswerdt\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-0009.12726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Policy Points Policymakers should consider both material (e.g., cost) and attitudinal (e.g., skepticism) barriers to mental health treatment access. Public support for government action on mental health is high but varies based on experience-based and hypothetical beliefs about barriers to treatment. Appeals to personal experience and perspective-taking may be successful in building support for government action on mental health.</p><p><strong>Context: </strong>Mental health problems represent a major public health issue for the United States, and access to mental health treatment is both inadequate and unevenly distributed. There is a strong justification for government action on mental health treatment, but it is unclear whether there is a political constituency for such action. Existing work suggests that stigma and othering of people with mental illnesses contributes to reduced support for intervention. I expand on the existing literature by focusing on mental health as an issue that may apply to Americans' own lives rather than only to a stigmatized outgroup.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using original questions on a nationally representative 2023 survey of 1,000 American adults, I measured agreement with statements about barriers to mental health treatment access that respondents have experienced or, if they have not sought treatment, their hypothetical assessment of these barriers. I also measured their support for statements in favor of change to address mental health. I analyzed the demographic and political correlates of agreement with the barrier statements and used regressions to examine their possible causal effect on support for change.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Agreement with statements about access barriers follows expected patterns in some cases (e.g., socioeconomic status) but not in others (e.g., race/ethnicity). I also documented a notable partisan and ideological divide in these experiences and beliefs. I found that Americans who agreed that material factors are a barrier to access were more supportive of action on mental health, whereas those who agreed with statements suggesting discomfort or skepticism were less supportive.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings suggest that personal experience and perspective-taking should be integrated into the study of public opinion on mental health, complementing existing work on stigma and othering. Appeals to experience and perspective-taking may be a successful strategy for building public support for action on mental health.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49810,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Milbank Quarterly\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Milbank Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12726\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Milbank Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12726","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政策要点决策者应同时考虑物质(如成本)和态度(如怀疑)障碍,以获得精神卫生治疗。公众对政府在精神卫生方面采取行动的支持度很高,但根据经验和对治疗障碍的假设信念而有所不同。对个人经验和换位思考的呼吁可能会成功地为政府在精神卫生方面的行动赢得支持。背景:心理健康问题是美国的一个主要公共卫生问题,获得心理健康治疗的机会不足且分布不均。政府在精神健康治疗方面采取行动是有充分理由的,但目前尚不清楚是否有政治支持者支持这种行动。现有的研究表明,对精神疾病患者的污名化和其他行为导致对干预的支持减少。我扩展了现有的文献,把精神健康作为一个可能适用于美国人自己生活的问题,而不仅仅是一个被污名化的外群体。方法:使用具有全国代表性的2023年1000名美国成年人调查的原始问题,我测量了受访者对心理健康治疗障碍的陈述的同意程度,或者如果他们没有寻求治疗,他们对这些障碍的假设评估。我还测量了他们对支持改变以解决心理健康问题的声明的支持程度。我分析了同意障碍陈述的人口统计学和政治相关性,并使用回归来检验它们对支持变革的可能因果影响。研究结果:在某些情况下(例如,社会经济地位),人们对获取障碍的认同符合预期模式,但在其他情况下(例如,种族/民族)则不然。我还记录了这些经历和信仰中明显的党派和意识形态分歧。我发现,那些认为物质因素是获得医疗服务的障碍的美国人更支持在心理健康方面采取行动,而那些同意暗示不适或怀疑言论的人则不太支持。结论:这些研究结果表明,个人经验和观点吸收应纳入对心理健康的公众舆论的研究,补充现有的工作对耻辱和其他。呼吁经验和换位思考可能是争取公众支持精神卫生行动的一项成功战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mental Health Treatment Access: Experience, Hypotheticals, and Public Opinion.

Policy Points Policymakers should consider both material (e.g., cost) and attitudinal (e.g., skepticism) barriers to mental health treatment access. Public support for government action on mental health is high but varies based on experience-based and hypothetical beliefs about barriers to treatment. Appeals to personal experience and perspective-taking may be successful in building support for government action on mental health.

Context: Mental health problems represent a major public health issue for the United States, and access to mental health treatment is both inadequate and unevenly distributed. There is a strong justification for government action on mental health treatment, but it is unclear whether there is a political constituency for such action. Existing work suggests that stigma and othering of people with mental illnesses contributes to reduced support for intervention. I expand on the existing literature by focusing on mental health as an issue that may apply to Americans' own lives rather than only to a stigmatized outgroup.

Methods: Using original questions on a nationally representative 2023 survey of 1,000 American adults, I measured agreement with statements about barriers to mental health treatment access that respondents have experienced or, if they have not sought treatment, their hypothetical assessment of these barriers. I also measured their support for statements in favor of change to address mental health. I analyzed the demographic and political correlates of agreement with the barrier statements and used regressions to examine their possible causal effect on support for change.

Findings: Agreement with statements about access barriers follows expected patterns in some cases (e.g., socioeconomic status) but not in others (e.g., race/ethnicity). I also documented a notable partisan and ideological divide in these experiences and beliefs. I found that Americans who agreed that material factors are a barrier to access were more supportive of action on mental health, whereas those who agreed with statements suggesting discomfort or skepticism were less supportive.

Conclusions: These findings suggest that personal experience and perspective-taking should be integrated into the study of public opinion on mental health, complementing existing work on stigma and othering. Appeals to experience and perspective-taking may be a successful strategy for building public support for action on mental health.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Milbank Quarterly
Milbank Quarterly 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
37
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Milbank Quarterly is devoted to scholarly analysis of significant issues in health and health care policy. It presents original research, policy analysis, and commentary from academics, clinicians, and policymakers. The in-depth, multidisciplinary approach of the journal permits contributors to explore fully the social origins of health in our society and to examine in detail the implications of different health policies. Topics addressed in The Milbank Quarterly include the impact of social factors on health, prevention, allocation of health care resources, legal and ethical issues in health policy, health and health care administration, and the organization and financing of health care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信