Explore the vast range of titles available.

[...]mental health services should be scaled up as an essential component of universal health coverage and should be fully integrated into the global response to other health priorities, including non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, and HIV/AIDS. [...]barriers and threats to mental health need to be addressed; these include the lack of awareness of the value of mental health in social and economic development, the lack of attention to mental health promotion and protection across sectors, the severe demand-side constraints for mental health care caused by stigma and discrimination, and the increasing threats to mental health due to global challenges such as climate change and growing inequality. [...]mental health needs to be protected by public policies and developmental efforts; these intersectoral actions should be undertaken by each country's leaders to engage a wide range of stakeholders within and beyond health, including sectors in education, workplaces, social welfare, gender empowerment, child and youth services, criminal justice and development, and humanitarian assistance. [...]investments in research and innovation should grow and harness novel approaches from diverse disciplines such as genomics, neuroscience, health services research, clinical sciences, and social sciences, both for implementation research on scaling up mental health interventions and for discovery research to advance understanding of causes and mechanisms of mental disorders and develop effective interventions to prevent and treat them.

The burden of mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders increased by 41% between 1990 and 2010 and now accounts for one in every 10 lost years of health globally. This sobering statistic does not take into account the substantial excess mortality associated with these disorders or the social and economic consequences of MNS disorders on affected persons, their caregivers, and society. A wide variety of effective interventions, including drugs, psychological treatments, and social interventions, can prevent and treat MNS disorders. At the population-level platform of service delivery, best practices include legislative measures to restrict access to means of self-harm or suicide and to reduce the availability of and demand for alcohol. At the community-level platform, best practices include life-skills training in schools to build social and emotional competencies. At the health-care-level platform, we identify three delivery channels. Two of these delivery channels are especially relevant from a public health perspective: self-management (eg, web-based psychological therapy for depression and anxiety disorders) and primary care and community outreach (eg, non-specialist health worker delivering psychological and pharmacological management of selected disorders). The third delivery channel, hospital care, which includes specialist services for MNS disorders and first-level hospitals providing other types of services (such as general medicine, HIV, or paediatric care), play an important part for a smaller proportion of cases with severe, refractory, or emergency presentations and for the integration of mental health care in other health-care channels, respectively. The costs of providing a significantly scaled up package of specified cost-effective interventions for prioritised MNS disorders in low-income and lower-middle-income countries is estimated at US$3–4 per head of population per year. Since a substantial proportion of MNS disorders run a chronic and disabling course and adversely affect household welfare, intervention costs should largely be met by government through increased resource allocation and financial protection measures (rather than leaving households to pay out-of-pocket). Moreover, a policy of moving towards universal public finance can also be expected to lead to a far more equitable allocation of public health resources across income groups. Despite this evidence, less than 1% of development assistance for health and government spending on health in low-income and middle-income countries is allocated to the care of people with these disorders. Achieving the health gains associated with prioritised interventions will require not just financial resources, but committed and sustained efforts to address a range of other barriers (such as paucity of human resources, weak governance, and stigma). Ultimately, the goal is to massively increase opportunities for people with MNS disorders to access services without the prospect of discrimination or impoverishment and with the hope of attaining optimal health and social outcomes.

This Series paper describes the first systematic effort to review the unmet mental health needs of adults in China and India. The evidence shows that contact coverage for the most common mental and substance use disorders is very low. Effective coverage is even lower, even for severe disorders such as psychotic disorders and epilepsy. There are vast variations across the regions of both countries, with the highest treatment gaps in rural regions because of inequities in the distribution of mental health resources, and variable implementation of mental health policies across states and provinces. Human and financial resources for mental health are grossly inadequate with less than 1% of the national health-care budget allocated to mental health in either country. Although China and India have both shown renewed commitment through national programmes for community-oriented mental health care, progress in achieving coverage is far more substantial in China. Improvement of coverage will need to address both supply-side barriers and demand-side barriers related to stigma and varying explanatory models of mental disorders. Sharing tasks with community-based workers in a collaborative stepped-care framework is an approach that is ripe to be scaled up, in particular through integration within national priority health programmes. India and China need to invest in increasing demand for services through active engagement with the community, to strengthen service user leadership and ensure that the content and delivery of mental health programmes are culturally and contextually appropriate.

The Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (GBD 2010), estimated that a substantial proportion of the world's disease burden came from mental, neurological and substance use disorders. In this paper, we used GBD 2010 data to investigate time, year, region and age specific trends in burden due to mental, neurological and substance use disorders. For each disorder, prevalence data were assembled from systematic literature reviews. DisMod-MR, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, was used to model prevalence by country, region, age, sex and year. Prevalence data were combined with disability weights derived from survey data to estimate years lived with disability (YLDs). Years lost to premature mortality (YLLs) were estimated by multiplying deaths occurring as a result of a given disorder by the reference standard life expectancy at the age death occurred. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were computed as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. In 2010, mental, neurological and substance use disorders accounted for 10.4% of global DALYs, 2.3% of global YLLs and, 28.5% of global YLDs, making them the leading cause of YLDs. Mental disorders accounted for the largest proportion of DALYs (56.7%), followed by neurological disorders (28.6%) and substance use disorders (14.7%). DALYs peaked in early adulthood for mental and substance use disorders but were more consistent across age for neurological disorders. Females accounted for more DALYs in all mental and neurological disorders, except for mental disorders occurring in childhood, schizophrenia, substance use disorders, Parkinson's disease and epilepsy where males accounted for more DALYs. Overall DALYs were highest in Eastern Europe/Central Asia and lowest in East Asia/the Pacific. Mental, neurological and substance use disorders contribute to a significant proportion of disease burden. Health systems can respond by implementing established, cost effective interventions, or by supporting the research necessary to develop better prevention and treatment options.

A consortium of researchers, advocates and clinicians announces here research priorities for improving the lives of people with mental illness around the world, and calls for urgent action and investment.

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).

Supported employment is a treatment whereby those with severe mental illness (or other disabilities) receive aid searching for competitive employment and mental health (or other) treatments concurrently. The most popular implementation of supported employment is individual placement and support (IPS). We conducted meta-analytic analyses of the randomized controlled trials of IPS. We found that subjects in IPS, compared to usual treatment conditions, had better vocational outcomes (obtained any competitive employment: RR = 1.63, 95%CI = [1.46, 1.82]; job tenure: d = 0.55, 95%CI = [0.33, 0.79]; job length: d = 0.46, 95%CI = [0.35, 0.57]; income: d = 0.48, 95%CI = [0.36, 0.59]) Non-vocational outcomes estimates, while favoring IPS, included the null (quality of life: d = 0.30, 95%CI = [-0.07, 0.67]; global functioning: d = 0.09, 95%CI = [-0.09, 0.27]; mental health: d = 0.03, 95%CI = [-0.15, 0.21]). Analysis of the expected proportion of studies with a true effect on non-vocational outcomes with d>0.2 showed some reason to expect a possible improvement for quality of life for at least some settings (Prop = 0.57, 95%CI = [0.30, 0.84]).

Many different countries have been under lockdown or extreme social distancing measures to control the spread of COVID-19. The potentially far-reaching side effects of these measures have not yet been fully understood. In this study we analyse the results of a multi-country survey conducted in Italy (N = 3,504), Spain (N = 3,524) and the United Kingdom (N = 3,523), with two separate analyses. In the first analysis, we examine the elicitation of citizens' concerns over the downplaying of the economic consequences of the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic. We control for Social Desirability Bias through a list experiment included in the survey. In the second analysis, we examine the data from the same survey to predict the level of stress, anxiety and depression associated with being economically vulnerable and having been affected by a negative economic shock. To accomplish this, we have used a prediction algorithm based on machine learning techniques. To quantify the size of this affected population, we compare its magnitude with the number of people affected by COVID-19 using measures of susceptibility, vulnerability and behavioural change collected in the same questionnaire. We find that the concern for the economy and for \"the way out\" of the lockdown is diffuse and there is evidence of minor underreporting. Additionally, we estimate that around 42.8% of the populations in the three countries are at high risk of stress, anxiety, and depression, based on their level of economic vulnerability and their exposure to a negative economic shock.

To identify and synthesise the literature on the cost of mental disorders. Systematic literature searches were conducted in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, EconLit, NHS York Database and PsychInfo using key terms for cost and mental disorders. Searches were restricted to January 1980-May 2019. The inclusion criteria were: (1) cost-of-illness studies or cost-analyses; (2) diagnosis of at least one mental disorder; (3) study population based on the general population; (4) outcome in monetary units. The systematic review was preregistered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019127783). In total, 13 579 potential titles and abstracts were screened and 439 full-text articles were evaluated by two independent reviewers. Of these, 112 articles were included from the systematic searches and 31 additional articles from snowball searching, resulting in 143 included articles. Data were available from 48 countries and categorised according to nine mental disorder groups. The quality of the studies varied widely and there was a lack of studies from low- and middle-income countries and for certain types of mental disorders (e.g. intellectual disabilities and eating disorders). Our study showed that certain groups of mental disorders are more costly than others and that these rankings are relatively stable between countries. An interactive data visualisation site can be found here: https://nbepi.com/econ. This is the first study to provide a comprehensive overview of the cost of mental disorders worldwide.