Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book explores the moral lives of mental health clinicians serving the most marginalized individuals in the US healthcare system. Drawing on years of fieldwork in a community psychiatry outreach team, Brodwin traces the ethical dilemmas and everyday struggles of front line providers. On the street, in staff room debates, or in private confessions, these psychiatrists and social workers confront ongoing challenges to their self-image as competent and compassionate advocates. At times they openly question the coercion and forced-dependency built into the current system of care. At other times they justify their use of extreme power in the face of loud opposition from clients. This in-depth study exposes the fault lines in today's community psychiatry. It shows how people working deep inside the system struggle to maintain their ideals and manage a chronic sense of futility. Their commentaries about the obligatory and the forbidden also suggest ways to bridge formal bioethics and the realities of mental health practice. The experiences of these clinicians pose a single overarching question: how should we bear responsibility for the most vulnerable among us?

As the global psychiatric community enters a new era of transformation, this book explores lessons learned from previous efforts with the goal of \"getting it right\" this time. In response to the common refrain that we know about and 'do' recovery already, the authors set the recovery movement within the conceptual framework of major thinkers and achievers in the history of psychiatry, such as Philippe Pinel, Dorothea Dix, Adolf Meyer, Harry Stack Sullivan, and Franco Basaglia. The book reaches beyond the usual boundaries of psychiatry to incorporate lessons from related fields, such as psychology, sociology, social welfare, philosophy, political economic theory, and civil rights. From Jane Addams and the Settlement House movement to Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gilles Deleuze, this book identifies the less well-known and less visible dimensions of the recovery concept and movement that underlie concrete clinical practice. In addition, the authors highlight the limitations of previous efforts to reform and transform mental health practice, such as the de-institutionalization movement begun in the 1950s, in the hope that the field will not have to repeat these same mistakes. Their thoughtful analysis and valuable advice will benefit people in recovery, their loved ones, the practitioners who serve them, and society at large. Foreword by Fred Frese, Founder of the Community and State Hospital Section of the American Psychological Association and past president of the National Mental Health Consumers' Association.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented a formidable challenge to care continuity for community mental health clients with serious mental illness and for providers who have had to quickly pivot the modes of delivering critical services. Despite these challenges, many of the changes implemented during the pandemic can and should be maintained. These include offering a spectrum of options for remote and in-person care, greater integration of behavioral and physical healthcare, prevention of viral exposure, increased collaborative decision-making related to long-acting injectable and clozapine use, modifying safety plans and psychiatric advance directives to include new technologies and broader support systems, leveraging natural supports, and integration of digital health interventions. This paper represents the authors’ collaborative attempt to both reflect the changes to clinical practice we have observed in CMHCs across the US during this pandemic and to suggest how these changes can align with best practices identified in the empirical literature.

Resources for mental health include policy and infrastructure within countries, mental health services, community resources, human resources, and funding. We discuss here the general availability of these resources, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Government spending on mental health in most of the relevant countries is far lower than is needed, based on the proportionate burden of mental disorders and the availability of cost-effective and affordable interventions. The poorest countries spend the lowest percentages of their overall health budgets on mental health. Most care is now institutionally based, and the transition to community care would require additional funds that have not been made available in most countries. Human resources available for mental health care in most low-income and middle-income countries are very limited, and shortages are likely to persist. Not only are resources for mental health scarce, they are also inequitably distributed—between countries, between regions, and within communities. Populations with high rates of socioeconomic deprivation have the highest need for mental health care, but the lowest access to it. Stigma about mental disorders also constrains use of available resources. People with mental illnesses are also vulnerable to abuse of their human rights. Inefficiencies in the use of available resources for mental health care include allocative and technical inefficiencies in financing mechanisms and interventions, and an overconcentration of resources in large institutions. Scarcity of available resources, inequities in their distribution, and inefficiencies in their use pose the three main obstacles to better mental health, especially in low-income and middle-income countries.

In low-income countries, care for people with mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders is largely absent, especially in rural settings. To increase treatment coverage, integration of mental health services into community and primary healthcare settings is recommended. While this strategy is being rolled out globally, rigorous evaluation of outcomes at each stage of the service delivery pathway from detection to treatment initiation to individual outcomes of care has been missing. A combination of methods were employed to evaluate the impact of a district mental healthcare plan for depression, psychosis, alcohol use disorder (AUD), and epilepsy as part of the Programme for Improving Mental Health Care (PRIME) in Chitwan District, Nepal. We evaluated 4 components of the service delivery pathway: (1) contact coverage of primary care mental health services, evaluated through a community study (N = 3,482 combined for all waves of community surveys) and through service utilisation data (N = 727); (2) detection of mental illness among participants presenting in primary care facilities, evaluated through a facility study (N = 3,627 combined for all waves of facility surveys); (3) initiation of minimally adequate treatment after diagnosis, evaluated through the same facility study; and (4) treatment outcomes of patients receiving primary-care-based mental health services, evaluated through cohort studies (total N = 449 depression, N = 137; AUD, N = 175; psychosis, N = 95; epilepsy, N = 42). The lack of structured diagnostic assessments (instead of screening tools), the relatively small sample size for some study components, and the uncontrolled nature of the study are among the limitations to be noted. All data collection took place between 15 January 2013 and 15 February 2017. Contact coverage increased 7.5% for AUD (from 0% at baseline), 12.2% for depression (from 0%), 11.7% for epilepsy (from 1.3%), and 50.2% for psychosis (from 3.2%) when using service utilisation data over 12 months; community survey results did not reveal significant changes over time. Health worker detection of depression increased by 15.7% (from 8.9% to 24.6%) 6 months after training, and 10.3% (from 8.9% to 19.2%) 24 months after training; for AUD the increase was 58.9% (from 1.1% to 60.0%) and 11.0% (from 1.1% to 12.1%) for 6 months and 24 months, respectively. Provision of minimally adequate treatment subsequent to diagnosis for depression was 93.9% at 6 months and 66.7% at 24 months; for AUD these values were 95.1% and 75.0%, respectively. Changes in treatment outcomes demonstrated small to moderate effect sizes (9.7-point reduction [d = 0.34] in AUD symptoms, 6.4-point reduction [d = 0.43] in psychosis symptoms, 7.2-point reduction [d = 0.58] in depression symptoms) at 12 months post-treatment. These combined results make a promising case for the feasibility and impact of community- and primary-care-based services delivered through an integrated district mental healthcare plan in reducing the treatment gap and increasing effective coverage for MNS disorders. While the integrated mental healthcare approach does lead to apparent benefits in most of the outcome metrics, there are still significant areas that require further attention (e.g., no change in community-level contact coverage, attrition in AUD detection rates over time, and relatively low detection rates for depression).