Search

The focus of this study is the WHO's mhGAP‐Intervention Guide (mhGAP‐IG) 2.0 (2016), an evidence‐based tool and guideline to help detect, diagnose and manage the most common mental disorders, designed for use by non‐specialists globally but particularly in low‐ and middle‐income countries. This research is a starting point in tracing the multiple 'doings' of mhGAP‐IG – connecting questions of how it is 'done' and what does it 'do' – to the living histories and wider global mental health assemblages that make the tool possible and shape its global circulation. We examine the conditions of possibility that produce and legitimate mhGAP‐IG, and the ways these are 'black boxed' through casting mhGAP‐IG in technical rather than epistemological terms. The study illuminates how its explicit design for global expansion positions mhGAP‐IG as open to questioning from those who are technical 'insiders' and setting the epistemological parameters of its own critique. It analyses mhGAP‐IG as an 'inscription device' that inscribes and materialises algorithmic imaginaries of mental health that impact on design and local implementation. This study is one attempt at initiating dialogue with the WHO from perspectives and methodological approaches not usually included in the conversation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT: Perceptions regarding the importance of mental health are shifting at a global level. Once described as an ‘invisible problem’ in international development, mental health is now being framed as one of the most pressing development issues of our time. Concern over the historical absence of mental health from the development agenda — despite its being regarded as a major obstacle to development — has led to its recent inclusion in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This article critically examines three intersecting axes key to its inclusion in the SDGs: 1) the conceptualization and calculation of the contribution of mental disorder to the global burden of disease; 2) the quantification of mental disorder as an economic burden; and 3) the relationship between mental distress and poverty. The article highlights the urgent need to foster a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between mental health and development, and shows how, at times, interventions in the two fields work together in producing reductionist, economistic, individualized and psychologized responses to poverty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The positive association between 'mental illness' and poverty is one of the most well established in psychiatric epidemiology. Yet, there is little conclusive evidence about the nature of this relationship. Generally, explanations revolve around the idea of a vicious cycle, where poverty may cause mental ill health, and mental ill health may lead to poverty. Problematically, much of the literature overlooks the historical, social, political, and cultural trajectories of constructions of both poverty and 'mental illness'. Laudable attempts to explore the social determinants of mental health sometimes take recourse to using and reifying psychiatric diagnostic categories that individualize distress and work to psychiatrically reconfigure 'symptoms' of oppression, poverty, and inequality as 'symptoms' of 'mental illness'. This raises the paradoxical issue that the very tools that are used to research the relationship between poverty and mental health may prevent recognition of the complexity of that relationship. Looking at the mental health-poverty nexus through a lens of psychiatrization (intersecting with medicalization, pathologization, and psychologization), this paper recognizes the need for radically different tools to trace the messiness of the multiple relationships between poverty and distress. It also implies radically different interventions into mental health and poverty that recognize the landscapes in which lived realities of poverty are embedded, the political economy of psychiatric diagnostic and prescribing practices, and ultimately to address the systemic causes of poverty and inequality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the World Health Organization calls to 'scale up' access to psychotropic drugs for children in the global South, research from the global North has found that long-term use of psychotropic drugs may be at best ineffective, or at worst harmful. Questioning what counts as evidence within the Movement for Global Mental Health, this article maps the physical, psychological and sociopolitical effects of increasingly global psychotropic interventions into children's lives. This psychiatrisation will be read alongside colonisation, leading to the uncomfortable question of whether every child should have the right to a psychotropic childhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]