Content area
Full text
Introduction
Poor mental health is a growing, global, public health concern; though one which, paradoxically, receives little debate by comparison to competing public health priorities. Mental health disorders (i.e. those of an involuntary psychic or emotional origin) along with behavioural disorders (i.e. those consciously predicated and enacted) are assessed as being among the leading causes of the global burden of disease (Edwards et al., 2016; Vos et al., 2015). Furthermore, depression is – as a single mental health condition – “predicted to be the second leading cause of global disability burden by 2020” (World Health Organisation, 2001a, p. 20). To take the UK as an example, prevalence estimates suggest almost 45% of people believe they could have a diagnosable mental health condition; 36% of people self-identify with one; and approximately 20% of men and 25% of women are actually in receipt of a clinical diagnosis relating to mental illness at any one time (Stansfeld et al., 2016). Yet mental health continues to lag behind physical health in terms of public funding (for both research and care), public understanding, and public health outcomes (Vigo et al., 2019), in spite of moves to crystallise parity of esteem between mental and physical health into law, health policies, and research strategies.
Despite the clearly ubiquitous nature of mental ill health, seen here even at this macro-level, there remains an apparent lack of public health engagement to deepen understanding and effectively intervene in an evidence-based manner, aside from the practise of medicating en masse. This is what Moncrieff (2009, p. 237) argues is a practice predicated on “a huge collective myth […] that psychiatric drugs act by correcting the biological basis of psychiatric symptoms or diseases” when there is in fact “no evidence to substantiate this view” for the three main classes of drugs: anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, and mood stabilisers and stimulants (Luhrmann, 2000). However, their widespread and commonly accepted usage may be otherwise interpreted by the lay-public as suggestive of an efficacious nature. Where mental health is addressed socially, the emphasis usually stagnates on promoting so-called “good” mental health (often in schools or workplaces), or on improving mental health literacy – which when unpacked often relies on much of the...