Global mental health and psychosocial support programming: An expert review of major implementation and funding challenges

Le résumé fourni par la source

The global mental health (GMH) field aims to equitably improve mental health and well-being everywhere. This article reviews persistent common challenges hindering sustained, high-quality delivery of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). Our focus is on programming that is funded or implemented by external organizations, typically universities or international non-governmental organizations from high-income countries. It is a consensus statement of MHPSS practitioners, programmers and researchers working for these organizations and some who are locally based who observe these programs in action. We comment on progress to date, barriers and recommendations for change and the importance of promoting sustained integration of MHPSS into health and social service systems through a comprehensive, recovery-oriented system of care. We call for prioritizing often-neglected issues (e.g., stigma, severe mental health conditions and neurodevelopmental conditions), strengthening workforce training and supervision and monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure program quality. The continued dominance of the Global North in shaping GMH programming priorities remains a concern. We advocate for a greater involvement of local workers and communities in agenda-setting for programs, culturally grounded implementation and long-term capacity building. Evidence-based practices must be met with contextual relevance, and comprehensive guidelines for sustained support are needed for development settings. For persistent funding challenges, we recommend clearer funder objectives, investment in in-house mental health expertise and funder coordination with prioritization of complementary programming. These recommendations are essential to realizing equitable, comprehensive, evidence-based and contextually grounded GMH programming.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.