Global Mental Health: Medical versus Social Approaches to Treatment and Social Change

It has been just six years since the Movement for Global Mental Health took off on October 8, 2008. In that time, the Movement has sought to create a platform that connects the global network of the stakeholders in the field of mental health. While the movement has made much progress in the past few years, it has not been without controversy and criticism.

The most common allegation being that the Movement represents a bio-medical approach to mental health, where psychiatrists rule the roost and the discipline is defined in terms of medical, as opposed to social, parameters. Naturally, such allegations have come from the stakeholders within the field who work within the human rights framework and define mental health within socio-economic parameters. A recent book written by China Mills at Oxford University entitled Decolonising global mental health: The psychiatrization of the majority world (Concepts for Critical Psychology), examines this critique of global mental health well. Mills argues that there is a continued colonial mindset in the field of mental health global mental health.

However, there seems to be a misunderstanding among social-model advocates of mental health regarding the aims and methods of global mental health and in particular the Movement for Global Mental Health.

In this context, iFred wants to draw your attention to a recent interview taken of Professor Vikram Patel, a leading intellectual in vikram patelthe field of Global Mental Health, with Bio Medical Central.

Here, Patel talks about the impact of global mental health on traditional concepts of psychiatry and discusses the initiatives and platforms being developed to promote capacity building, research, policy, advocacy and human rights within the established Centre for Global Mental Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in London. The anticipated challenges, controversies, and future directions of the global mental health are also highlighted as well. You can also listen to the audio version of this interview here.

 

——————————————————————————————————————————————

Interview with Vikram Patel, reproduced via Bio-Medical Central

What is global mental health and how will it impact the field of medicine?

Global mental health is a discipline of global health and, as with the mission of global health, its primary goal is to improve the health of people worldwide, with a strong focus on equity and access. There is no health without mental health. I think we know, through a large body of evidence, that mental health and physical health interact with each other in very diverse and intimate ways. Therefore, any attempt that we make to improve the mental health of individuals and populations will inevitably have a positive impact on the physical health of those individuals and populations. Therefore, investing in global mental health is, ultimately, an investment in global health.

How was the Centre for Global Mental Health established?

The Centre for Global Mental Health is a partnership between the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, which is Europe’s leading school of public health, and the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings Health Partners, which is Britain’s leading school of psychiatry and neurosciences. It’s a perfect marriage between academics who have strengths in the various disciplines of global health, and academics who have strengths in the various disciplines of clinical sciences related to mental health. The centre was founded in 2008 to bring these two complementary sets of disciplines on to the same platform to further the science of global mental health. The goal was to promote research, capacity building, and advocacy for policy to improve access to care for people living with mental disorders around the world, with a particular focus on those countries where the treatment gaps were the largest; that is, the low- and middle-income countries of the world.

Can you describe the initiatives and platforms that are involved with this collaboration?

Let me give you examples from each of the three broad themes of work that the Centre for Global Mental health pursues. Firstly, with capacity building, we are delighted that, after many years of plotting and planning, we were able to launch our full-time Masters in Global Mental Health last year. This year, we have had more than 20 applicants successfully admitted and beginning the MSc program. The MSc is, to my knowledge, the only face-to-face residential MSc in this discipline in the world today.

In the area of research, we are currently involved with dozens of research projects in more than 20 countries within sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia. Some of this research focuses on randomized controlled trials of innovative new interventions to improve access to evidence-based treatments, but we are also engaged in some exciting health systems work that examines how these evidence-based packages of care can be integrated into routine healthcare systems. Our portfolio also includes social science and epidemiological research on mental health problems.

Finally, in the realm of policy and advocacy, we have recently embarked on a number of exciting developments. The first is that we led the Mental Health Forum for the World Innovation Summit for Health, which was held in Qatar in December 2013. Along with Shekhar Saxena of the World Health Organization, I co-chaired this forum, which produced a report specifically directed at ministers of health and other policymakers, to recommend policy actions based on the research evidence in global mental health. Another exciting development is the Mental Health Innovations Network, supported by Grand Challenges Canada, whose goal is to synthesize the rapidly growing evidence base in the field into products that can be useful to a variety of different audiences, from researchers and practitioners to civil society and policymakers.

This is very exciting in terms of all the initiatives and platforms. What do you think are the current anticipated challenges?

There are a number of different challenges. The key is limited resources. There has actually been a fantastic increase in the amount of resources available for research, and of course the Centre for Global Mental Health has been a great beneficiary of that largesse. However, there has not been a similar increase in resources for mental health for ministries of health, particularly in the poorest countries of the world, which rely, to a large extent, on development assistance for their health programs. Thus there has not been the needed increase in resources to scale up mental health services in these countries. So the first important challenge is to mobilize development agencies to finance mental health services in the poorest countries of the world.

The second important challenge is a continuing concern among some communities about the validity of some of the mental health problems that the field is grappling with, in particular the common mental health problems like depression and anxiety. The concern is really whether these conditions are biomedical categories that have universal validity in all cultures, and whether the biomedical approaches that are being utilized in medicine and psychiatry in particular, are relevant and appropriate to all cultures of the world.

Can you indicate also the controversies such as the debate against global mental health?

In fact, my second point is at the heart of the critique that certain mental illness categories, such as depression in particular, do not travel well across cultures. The critique is that the use of such labels represents a medicalization of a social condition where the solutions lie not within a medical approach but more likely within the social or political sphere. And related to this is the concern of exporting psychiatric paradigms of treatment and care which have been at the heart of the mental healthcare systems of the developed world to developing countries where there is very little formal psychiatric care.

Do you also think that global mental health will be influenced by DSM-5 with its recent launch, and ICD-11, which will be launched in the future?

The honest truth is that global mental health is a completely different animal from its predecessor, which comprised cultural psychiatry and international psychiatry. First of all, global mental health is not simply psychiatry. Like global health, it is an interdisciplinary endeavor, and is firmly grounded in the South (that is, in the developing world). Most of the leading practitioners of global mental health live and work in developing countries, not in the developed world. Global mental health is completely contextualized to the cultural and social circumstances of the country in which this work is being carried out, and is action-oriented, seeking to improve the lives of people affected by mental health problems.

An important implication of this reality, in relation to your question, is the replacement of rigid diagnostic systems, which are much more suited to psychiatry and the specialized mental healthcare systems you might encounter in developed countries, with broader, more public health-oriented and contextually appropriate labels and diagnostic systems that communicate better to local policymakers, primary care workers and most importantly, to local communities. Global mental health barely uses DSM-4 or ICD-10 in any concrete way, and I think it is unlikely that DSM-5 or ICD-11 will have much traction either.

What do you think are the future directions for global mental health?

The future directions of global mental health lie in three big areas. The first is to mobilize resources by advocating to policymakers, especially in middle-income countries which have more resources, to finance scaling up of mental health care. This is particularly important in the context of universal health care to advocate for mental health to be given at least parity with physical health in resource allocation and service provision in middle income countries. For low income countries that continue to be dependent on development assistance, we need to be similarly advocating with donors to increase their resources specifically for mental health.

The second is to build capacity. It has to be admitted that there is a great shortage of every kind of mental healthcare provider in the developing world, from specialists like psychiatrists and psychologists all the way through to community-based workers who can provide frontline mental healthcare. There is a great need for investing both in programs that can build capacity that is scalable, and in curricula and other kinds of tools that can be utilized in these sorts of settings for these diverse professional groups.

The third, of course, is research. We clearly need to continue to build evidence which focuses on addressing questions about how we can integrate evidence-based packages for care within routine healthcare systems, so that we can inform governments on how they can make their mental health programs more effective and efficient.

What are you most excited about in relation to the recent developments in global mental health?

What I am really most excited about is that mental health has come out of the closet. I remember 15 years ago when I began working in this field, it was usually embarrassing in India to say that you were a psychiatrist because, if they did not walk away from you, they would look at you perplexed and ask, “Is this really relevant in our country?” I think there has been a dramatic change in the attitudes towards mental health in every sector of society in India, which is the country I know best, whether it is in the community, in the media in terms of the amount and the quality of the reporting on mental health issues, and of course at the level of policymakers. Today, it is so straightforward for me to sit with a Secretary of Health and talk about mental health issues; they are much more receptive, and indeed, more importantly, are much more willing to back their interest with resources.

 

There is a strong need to transform the Movement for Global Mental Health into an inclusive movement

-Jagannath Lamichhane

Although some claim that The Movement for Global Mental Health (MGMH) is, essentially, the brainchild of the Western medical framework, a closer look at the work being done under the MGMH banner would prove contrary. I know that less powerful and low income countries and their citizenry are making important strides to define the problems and solutions related to mental health because of the work of the Movement.

against mental violence The MGMH is the first cross-continental effort to bring diverse expertise, resources and perspectives on to one platform with a common goal of addressing mental health both at the global and local level. Their representation of a global movement, rather than western brainchild, is particularly evident in the recent shift of the global secretariat of the movement from the West (Sydney, Australia) to New Delhi, India, as well as the transfer of the movement’s leadership from medical professionals to those with expertise in social and community based fields. These changes are working to accommodate the diverse concerns of civil society groups regarding the rights of the persons with psychosocial disability and mental health problems.

Contrary to traditional approaches of addressing mental health, in which ‘professionals’ thrust ‘treatment’ onto ‘patients’, the MGMH promotes the role of people with psychosocial disabilities and mental health problems as equal partners in every endeavor from the health care setting, to the community and in efforts to promote human rights, fighting stigma and discriminations. Also, the MGMH advocates greater human rights along with affordable and accessible mental health care for all by putting greater emphasis on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

The MGMH believes in building an international civil society that can speak out and stand for the cause, and mobilise direct actions in order to overcome mental health challenges ranging from stigma, inequitable health services, social discrimination and others. This international community looks like a consolidated effort among the various stakeholder and creative partnerships among stakeholders around the world.

There are already some effective examples of partnership in promoting human rights and mental health. For example, the EMPOWER project brought together civil society groups representing all kinds of professionals working in the fields of medicine, research and human rights and together they worked not only to generate a new knowledge, but have set an example to advocate mental health in low and middle-income countries.

Towards creating a leadership community across the globe, the movement offers training and short courses like the Leadership in Mental Health, which is an annual two-week leadership course in mental health for all kinds of people interested and affected by mental health issues. The tutors in the course range from activists to researchers and psychosocial disabilities.

However, the future of MGMH is not straightforward. The divide among the stakeholders in the mental health community — some of whom prioritize the human rights elements over the medical elements and vice versa — is the greatest obstacle to fulfilling the goals of the movement.

The tussle over where the emphasis needs to be within the mental health domain has been at the centre of this divide. In fact, there is a misconstrued understanding among some stakeholders– largely non-professional groups– that the MGMH is a banner through which the medical model of psychiatry and mental health is being promoted. On the other hand, many professional groups believe that the non-professional activists and their associated movements in the realm of mental health reject the very idea of the possibilities of modern medicine in addressing mental health concerns. Some individuals and opinion makers have even labeled the MGMH as a neo-colonial project.

But these polarized views are untrue to the genuine efforts and initiatives being made across the board — by professionals and activists, and civil society groups in the field. That’s why although the major barrier for the Movement is this divide among stakeholders, I believe that these initial days of the Movement’s efforts can in fact be used to create a sense of belonging among all of those concerned. We can also hammer out the differences –among professionals, activists, researchers and psychosocial disability community – in order to come to a consensus which would benefit the hundreds of thousands of people living with mental health problems and psychosocial disability globally today.

There is no doubt in my mind that all groups are working tirelessly to find sustainable ways through which the needs of one of the most vulnerable groups in the world can be met –medically, socially, politically and economically. While making an effort to find solution, it is urgent among stakeholders to understand each other’s work and promote respect for each other.

(With support from Bidushi Dhungel)

 

INTERNATONAL COMMUNITY MUST SHOW MORAL SOLIDARITY TO ADDRESS MENTAL HEALTH SUFFERING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Jagannath Lamichhane

In my last blog post, I had briefly mentioned the need for international moral solidarity as a first step in addressing mental health related suffering in developing countries. Here, I will elaborate why international moral solidarity is important in the field of mental health and psychosocial disability.

Let me begin with a short description of a video aired on Channel4 (UK) a few months ago called life in chains: the plight of Somalia’s mentally ill. This film features Abdullahi, who was chained up by his kin for the past 17 years. The story of Abdullahi imbibes the viewer in his pain, his suffering. According to a BBC news report, Somalia has the highest rate of mental illness in the world. In a country where social order and the health care system have been devastated by decades of war, people with mental health problems are the forgotten people.

" It is on this humanitarian and human rights ground that I argue the international community must show moral solidarity in addressing mental health-related suffering of people with mental health problems in developing countries. That means we start to value people with mental health problems as equals to care about; as worthy as others to pay attention to, and their suffering as real as others’ to address. "

” It is on this humanitarian and human rights ground that I argue the international community must show moral solidarity in addressing mental health-related suffering of people with mental health problems in developing countries. That means we start to value people with mental health problems as equals to care about; as worthy as others to pay attention to, and their suffering as real as others’ to address. “

They cannot enjoy human status. They cannot enjoy the freedoms that even animals can. They are unseen everywhere in society and its social order, all the while physically and mentally in chains in front of our eyes in public spaces. Just like Abdullahi. In Somalia alone, over one hundred thousand people with mental health problems are living their lives in chains.

Somalia is not a stand-alone case. Take Indonesia for another example where over 30,000 people with mental health problems are still inhumanly chained across the country today. No matter — rich or poor — people with mental health problems are the worst victims of abuse, discrimination and social exclusion globally. The nature and degree of the problems are different in different countries but very much there and of their own local nature. While over-medicalization, forced treatment, torture and institutionalization are the major mental health-related problems of developed countries, lack of access to basic social services, medical treatment, chaining, abuse and discrimination are the widespread mental health related problems of low and middle income countries.

Despite the above mentioned evidence of abuse, neglect, discrimination, torture, cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment of people with mental health problems, the international community, actively involved in the low and middle income countries, is completely overlooking these issues. It is both a shame and surprise to me.  Why is the international community failing to show moral solidarity (at the very least) on mental health and psychosocial disability issues in developing countries?

Its answer is not simple. In my observation, it seems ignoring mental health problems in developing countries is a kind of hypocrisy being practiced by the international community. Their failure to notice such widespread mental health related human rights violations in poor countries is a challenge to the moral foundation of their work where they stand and what they preach.

The inhuman and degrading treatment of people with mental health problems are among the most disgraceful acts of our time. On the basis of superstitious beliefs; traditional, social and cultural practice; ignorance about the nature of  problems; lack of adequate social and family support; that those suffering are dangerous to self and other, people with mental health problems are being chained, locked up years in jails, and denied basic social and medical care.

After being labeled mentally ill, people loose their social status, community network, and kinship, which is equal to a social death, as explained in this article from The Lancet, ‘Global Mental Health: a failure of humanity’. This label creates permanent inequality in the society.  People with mental health problems cannot imagine enjoying their civil and political rights. They are shamed and demoralized. They turn into unequal and forgotten citizen. The suffering of these people however do not get any space at the global or local levels of discourse on human rights, development, social security, health, and others.

In the absence of moral solidarity, moral exclusion takes place. As described by Susan Opotow in her essay, Moral Exclusion and Injustice: An Introduction, “Moral exclusion occurs when individuals or groups are perceived as outside the boundary in which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply. Those who are morally excluded are perceived as nonentities, expendable, or underserving. Consequently, harming or exploiting them appears to be appropriate, acceptable, or just”.

In this context, my point is that the silence of the international community on mental health related problems endorses all kinds of atrocities against people with mental health problems, like Abdullahi. In a battle to challenge and stop such inhuman actions, first, it is important for everyone, including the international community, to acknowledge the prevalent tragedies faced by people with mental health problems in developing countries as unacceptable on humanitarian and human rights grounds.

It is on this humanitarian and human rights ground that I argue the international community must show moral solidarity in addressing mental health-related suffering of people with mental health problems in developing countries. That means we start to value people with mental health problems as equals to care about; as worthy as others to pay attention to, and their suffering as real as others’ to address.

(With support from Bidushi Dhungel)

Hidden Pictures and the World Health Organization: A Journey to Uncover Global Stories of Mental Health

Hidden Pictures Film

Here is a video we are all about right now at iFred. It’s a summary of the film Hidden Pictures by filmmaker and physician Delaney Ruston. Ruston’s work highlights both the serious need for global mental health resources and the power our personal stories can have

iFred joined global leaders to support the World Health Organization in crafting the Mental Health Global Action Plan by in 2012, that was then adopted by the United Nations in 2013.  Countries around the world convened to discuss implementation of the action plan for Global Mental Health Day in October, 2013, and, with policy highlighted in Ruston’s film. Have you browsed the document yet? You can read an mhGAP summery here or the entire document here. on creating social change.

Watch the WHO and Ruston’s video here and tell us what you think:

Hidden Pictures

The British Parliament Inquiry for Disability and Development is a lesson for governments around the world

-Jagannath Lamichhane

Recently, the British Government conducted a parliamentary inquiry on disability and development. As part of the inquiry, leading academic institutions, researchers, disabled peoples organizations (DPOs) and civil society organizations representatives were invited to the parliament committee

"Sometimes, moral solidarity can be more important than the value of money. For millions of people with psychosocial disabilities in developing countries who are invisible and unheard in the society, moral solidarity from the donor community to protect and promote their human rights should be the first concern"

“Sometimes, moral solidarity can be more important than the value of money. For millions of people with psychosocial disabilities in developing countries who are invisible and unheard in the society, moral solidarity from the donor community to protect and promote their human rights should be the first concern”

meeting to present evidences based on research and lived experiences that highlight strong links between disability and development.

All participants at the inquiry univocally emphasized the need to mainstream disability issues as part of a strong international development program. Despite the presence of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities-2006 (CRPD) and the international obligations to support disability communities under the Convention, many DPO representatives expressed their dissatisfaction over the grave international inaction on addressing disability issues in developing countries.

According to the World Report on Disability 2011 , over one billion people – 15% of the world’s population- are disabled. Around 80% of people with disabilities (PWDs) live in developing countries. Out of them, 98% are unemployed. Over 90% PWDs are out of school. The majority of PWDs are trapped in the vicious cycle of social exclusion, poverty, disease, malnutrition and death. During conflicts and disasters, PWDs are the worst victims of neglect and damage. Of the many disability categories, the situation of people with mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities, and intellectual disabilities is the most neglected. Those with mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities are marginalized within the disability groups.

In this context, the Center for Global Mental Health, CBM International and the Nepal Mental Health Foundation had submitted a joint inquiry submission to persuade the Inquiry Committee to include mental health and psychosocial disability issues in DFID’s future development programs. Prof. Graham Thornicroft was invited from our group. He presented mental health as a strong case for international development.

While the inquiry was underway, I was also invited by the chair of the International Development Committee Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce for an informal meeting to discuss the experiences and situation of mental health issues in developing countries, mainly of Nepal. It was a great opportunity for me to share the ordinary ground experiences of psychosocial disability and mental health in the hopes that DFID might take international leadership to address these issues.

Dr. Mary DeSilva from the Centre for Global Mental Health made my meeting possible with the Chair and, in fact, Mary herself has been playing a lead role in an effort to sensitize British parliamentarians about the tragedy of mental health issues and the routine human rights violations of people with psychosocial disabilities in developing countries.

My meeting with the Chair went well. He seemed quite concerned about the lack of educational, economic, social, health and livelihood opportunities of people with mental health problems and psychosocial disabilities in developing countries. The protection and promotion of human rights, quality health care and social inclusion were the main issues discussed with the Chair.

As I informed the Chair, in international development, money isn’t the only factor. Sometimes, moral solidarity can be more important than the value of money. For millions of people with psychosocial disabilities in developing countries who are invisible and unheard in the society, moral solidarity from the donor community to protect and promote their human rights should be the first concern. There are so many “No Cost” interventions where donor agencies can provide genuine moral support and solidarity. If the donors begin by allocating small resources matched by moral solidarity, it would go a long way to transform the millions of lives of people with mental health and psychosocial disabilities in poor countries.

I hope DFID will take both “No Cost” and “Low Cost” international leadership in this sector.

 

(With support from Bidushi Dhungel)

 

 

 

In order to address the suffering of those with mental health problems, there needs to be a radical shift in the understanding of mental illness

-Jagannath Lamichanne

I have always believed that the challenge of dealing with mental health problems is their invisibility. Anyone who suffers from mental illness repeatedly questions: Does it exist? Do other people also suffer the same problem? Do people believe that my mental suffering is real? Does it make me different? It is to provide answers to such complex questions, to promote the visibility of mental health, promote their acceptance and find ways to address the problems related to them that I have been working.

I learned early on that mental health problems were of serious concern to many people around the world. For example, depression, — the most common of mental illnesses — if left untreated, can lead to disastrous personal, social and even economic costs. Further, the lack of treatment and right to live with integrity as an

"...our big challenge is the legitimacy of civil society voices who have been struggling for years demanding the recognition of human rights and the social condition of people with mental health problems."

“…our big challenge is the legitimacy of civil society voices who have been struggling for years demanding the recognition of human rights and the social condition of people with mental health problems.”

equal member of society for those who suffer is an infringement on their human rights. This is especially true in under developed and developing countries where resources are scarce and access to any kind of treatment is bogged down with stigma alongside financial burdens.

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report titled “Mental Health and Development”. It focused on the civil, economic, human, and health rights of people with mental health conditions. According to the report, “the majority of development and poverty alleviation programmes do not reach persons with mental or psychosocial disabilities.” It goes on to say that between 75 percent and 85 percent of people who suffer from a variety of mental health problems do not have access to any form of mental health treatment.

But what is most crucial is the impact that such problems can have on society and on personal well-being of those who suffer. The report suggests that those with “mental and psychosocial disabilities are associated with rates of unemployment as high as 90 percent” and that they are “not provided with educational and vocational opportunities to meet their full potential”.

The lack of treatment and the stigma associated with mental illness has pushed those who suffer to the extreme margins. However, the relevance of mental health as a global issue is further established when one examines the link between chronic physical illness and mental illness, for mental illness is not an isolated occurrence.

According to WHO, four chronic illnesses—cardiovascular, diabetes, cancer and respiratory illnesses— are responsible for 60 percent of the world’s deaths. Further, The Lancet series on Global Mental Health suggests that persons with these chronic illnesses have much higher rates of depression and anxiety than the general population. Major depression among persons experiencing chronic medical conditions increases the burden of their physical illness and somatic symptoms. More importantly, it increases medical costs and mortality.

The bottom line is that mental illnesses occur with chronic physical illnesses in many patients, causing significant role impairment, loss of productive hours and disability. They also worsen prognosis for heart disease, stroke, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, cancer and other chronic illnesses. But the majority of factors responsible for mental illnesses — like depression among those suffering from chronic illnesses — are not being adequately addressed.

It has been a hard job for us to educate people that mental illnesses are a result of both social and medical conditions. While improving the quality of mental health services in coordination with physical health services, we also need social attention, care and support to ensure the recovery of people with mental health problems.

For this, the WHO report suggests two development paradigms: the need to improve aid effectiveness in poor countries; and the use of a human rights approach (universally) that ensures there are sufficient resources to provide quality services for people with mental health problems as well as their inclusion in development programmes.

Still our big challenge is the legitimacy of civil society voices who have been struggling for years demanding the recognition of human rights and the social condition of people with mental health problems. There is a need to create a strong social force for radical changes in the mental health area.

(With support from Bidushi Dhungel)

 

Press Release: iFred Launches Depression News Blog to Shine Light, Advocate Hope and End the Stigma of Depression

For Immediate Release:

February 5, 2014

iFred to launch global blog to shine  light, advocate hope, and end stigma of depression

Chicago IL:  The International Foundation for Research and Education on Depression (iFred) today launches its new blog series “Seeds for Hope” at (www.ifred.org). The aim is to shine light on the leading cause of disability around the world and give hope to the 350 million depression survivors worldwide with the disease. Jagannath Lamichhane, pioneer in mental health media from Nepal, is authoring the biweekly blog in the wake of the United Nations-adopted World Health Organization’s ‘Global Mental Health Action Plan’.

Jagannath Lamichhane was chosen to author this important endeavor as he is a human rights activist and has pioneered mental health advocacy in Nepal and globally.  When Jagannath was asked about authoring, he stated, “I am thrilled to be a part of iFred’s international effort to combat the stigma against depression,” adding that he would, through the blog, try to “address the range and depth of concerns facing those who suffer from depression and other health and human rights issues surrounding the disease and disability.  I also plan to highlight the incredible work countries and individuals around the world are doing globally in helping those with depression.”

Depression and other mental health problems have recently been recognized as a serious global health burden.  According to a new report entitled Transforming Lives, Enhancing Communities – Innovations in Global Mental Health – edited by Professor Dr. Vikram Patel and Dr Shekhar Saxena, two renowned authorities in the field of global mental health – at least 10 percent of the world’s population is affected by one of a wide range of mental disorders. The report also reveals that depression will be the leading cause of disability worldwide by 2030.

Currently, The WHO estimates that more than 350 million people from around the world already suffer from depression and that depression is behind a large portion of the one million yearly deaths caused by suicide globally. In fact, the burden of mental illness (among which depression is the leading cause) is more than 1.5 times that of all cancers.  These past two years the World Health Organization hosted a groundbreaking effort, of which IFred participated, to develop and implement A Global Mental Health Action Plan adopted by the United Nations for which member states around the world agreed to make mental health a priority.

Kathryn Goetzke’, iFred Founder, thinks this blog is critical to efforts for hope as she states “Depression is treatable, yet according to the World Health Organization less than 50% of those needing treatment receive treatment primarily due to stigma.  This blog is going to help us communicate the issues around depression, educate mental health consumers around the world on treatment, and continue to shine a positive light of hope to help end stigma.  I first met Jagannath in Athens, Greece at an event I spoke for on rebranding depression on the Global Mental Health Movement as we worked with the BBC to raise public awareness of our work.  We met then again at the United Nations while advocating Human Rights for those with depression, so I know we are in great hands and so very fortunate to have him on board”.

iFred hopes this endeavor will yield impactful results in awareness raising and engaging communities in finding solutions to tackle the greatest challenge of our time – depression.

About iFred:

The mission of International Foundation for Research and Education on Depression (iFred) is to shine a positive light on depression and eliminate the stigma associated with the disease through prevention, research and education. Its goal is to ensure 100% of the 350 million people affected by depression seek and receive treatment.  iFred is creating a shift in society’s negative perception of depression through positive imagery and branding—establishing the sunflower and color yellow as the international symbols of hope for depression. iFred also engages with individuals and organizations to execute high-impact and effective campaigns that educate the public about support and treatment for depression.

 

About Jagannath Lamichhanejagannath 3 (190x143)

Jagannath Lamichhane: Jagannath is a psychosocial disability and human rights activist from Nepal. He is the founding chairman of the Nepal Mental Health Foundation, the only advocacy and policy focused mental health service user-run organization. He has contributed greatly to the mental health discourse, including in The Guardian and the Lancet medical journal, among others. His main areas of interest are human rights violations, legal inequality, dehumanization, and social exclusion of people with psychosocial disabilities and mental health problems. Currently, he is doing MSC in Global Mental Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Kings College London.  In his free time, he likes to meditate, watch films and hopes to see more of this beautiful world.

Kathryn’s Story: Tackling Depression with a Smart Treatment Plan

Kathryn Goetzke, Field for HopeAs we hold onto our own islands of Hope in the face of depression, we are sure that the same treatment doesn’t work for everyone. Along with therapy and medication, various lifestyle choices and changes may add to our well being. In an article from Everyday Health, iFred founder Kathryn Goetzke discusses how she copes with depression.

‘Over the years, Goetzke has tried numerous medications, therapies, and healing modalities and has settled on “a pretty long list of things I do to keep myself mentally healthy.” Still, she notes, “even then I am not completely free from depression.” On the flip side, she says, “I have learned coping mechanisms that seem to keep my life running along very well.””

Read the story and tell us what a smart treatment plan looks like for you. Join our social networks for mental health,  including our community on Insipre, if you want to talk and learn more from others who find hope through their depression.

Everyday Health: “Tackling Depression with a Smart Treatment Plan”

Seeds for Hope

Lamichhane and Goetzke at the first Global Mental Health Summit

I still remember the first day I met Kathryn Goetze, founder of the International Foundation for Research and Education on Depression (iFred). It was in Greece on the 2nd of September, 2009, during the first ever global mental health summit; the early days of my entry into the then-newly emerging field of global mental health. I guess you could say that until then, when it came to issues of mental health, my understanding was traditional and shaped by negative public perceptions.

However, it was upon hearing Kathryn speak at the summit about the need to rebrand depression and her endeavor to give depression a positive brand with the help of the image of sunflowers, that I began to understand how we can work to re-construct social understandings of mental illness and depression. I began too slowly realize that societal perceptions of mental health are constructed with negative images and that with effective campaigning, could well be re-constructed with the use of positive imagery like that of the sunflower.

Since 2009, I have remained in constant communication with Kathryn, keenly observing her work. It was in 2011 that I finally got a chance to actually work with her on her global initiative — the Field for Hope campaign, where fields of sunflowers are planted to shed light on depression and simultaneously work to give the mental health related problems a more positive image. It was, however, only recently that I thought about exactly what the motivations for Kathryn’s involvement in the sector were. I knew that she was doing wonderful and innovative work to tackle stigma against depression but didn’t know why she was doing it. I caught up with her and what I learned was telling.

Kathryn had lost her father to suicide at the tender age of 19. “It was very devastating to me. He was a brilliant businessman, very close to me, and I knew there was something ‘wrong’ with him from an early age, but had no idea what it was,” she recalled. It was only after several years of study in her 20’s that she realized it was untreated depression.

By the time she was in her 30’s Kathryn began to apprehend that she too was struggling with depression, “a chemical imbalance of the brain that manifests itself in different ways through different people,” in her words. She had developed addictions – to food, alcohol and could not understand why for a long time.

That’s why when Kathryn launched her company she wanted to donate her time and resources to help educate people about depression. However, in order to do so, she would have to start a new movement herself.

The sad reality of the global context of depression is that even the non-profits and organizations working on depression are by and large straggled themselves by the negative stigmas and imageries surrounding depression. Kathryn found that “the nonprofits doing work in this area were often, ironically, depressing.” According to her, these non-profits focused more “on symptoms rather than the impact of treatment,” and fail to recognize the fact that depression is the “most hopeful disease there is — depression is treatable.” That fact is one that many societies across the world, even the most developed, are yet to come to terms with.

The majority of images of depression are depressing people–sad men and women, head bowing down, arms wrapped around the knees and almost crying, in dreadful black and white gloom. As an expert in marketing and branding, Kathryn set out to challenge and, thus, change the stigma surrounding depression. by creating an organization to help rebrand the disease through “educating other NGOs about branding and stigma, engaging celebrities and role models to talk about the disease, and teach the public about the biology of the brain.”

 

For Kathryn, it is this biology of the brain that is central to being mentally fit. “We must learn about creating and maintaining a healthy brain. Everything they think, eat, feel, and do affects the health of their brain.” According to her, the world is going to be based more and more on human intelligence, so creativity, brain health, and ability to solve problems is increasing ever more in importance. That is why Kathryn has begun this new movement to “Learn about and feed the brain in positive ways.”

 

This is not the first time such a rebranding of a disease is taking place. A major rebranding success was seen in fighting the stigma surrounding breast cancer some decades ago. Iconic symbols like the pink ribbon and the ownership of the cause by celebrities helped to quickly bring the disease to the mainstream and strip it of its negative stigma. Kathryn hopes to help enable the same for depression.

When asked what she would like to see accomplished in her life, she replied that she’d like to see an “event similar to ‘Stand Up to Cancer’, engaging celebrities from all walks of life to raise money and awareness for depression by speaking out on how to find hope when all else is going wrong.”  Further, Kathryn wants to be able to “live in a world where there are no suicides and people feel fine about getting treatment for their depression.” Her advocacy is undoubtedly on the right track to make this a reality.

In addition, Kathryn is working with companies to implement depression awareness and prevention programs in the workplace. She is also working on her Schools for Hope, “a curriculum we are developing to teach kids about how they can create Hope,” she said. Towards this end, she is also seeking support from consumer products companies.

Having been a part of the Field for Hope campaign, I can see its positive effects in encouraging communities to gather and talk about healthy brains and as a way to “honour those with depression,” as Kathryn told me. Overtime, the image of the sunflower will drown out the negative images of depression we see all-too-prevalent today. What Kathryn hopes for the future is to “have people think of a sunflower when they hear the word depression.”

Her work has been exemplary and encouraging in every way for the millions who are suffering. She vows to continue encouraging others to find the beauty in their darkness, and use the powerful force to create something full of light and inspiration for others.

I am proud to continue to be a part of her noble endeavor through my weekly blog beginning as of January 2014. I urge all to join hands to combat the greatest tragedy of the 21st century–depression.

-Jagannath Lamichhane

(With support from Bidushi Dhungel)

Jagannath Lamichhane is a mental health and human rights activist from Nepal. Currently, he is doing an MSC in global mental health, a program jointly run by Kings College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK. 

A Touching Message from a South African Sacred Activist; Her Thoughts on Mandela, Healing, and Hope

Dear fellow Sacred Activists:
Nelson-Mandela-Quotes-Wallpaper2
I have a heavy heart and many tears I am shedding this morning.  I am crying for my beloved country.  My heart is aching for all those who sacrificed so much in service to a just and civil society, and continue to do so. I pray that those who are currently in power in South Africa will pause as they mourn our beloved Madiba, and remember that he transformed from freedom fighter and enemy to a revered leader who sought reconciliation. Mandela was arrested after being found by a CIA agent.  My great-uncle (by marriage) Bram Fischer, was Mandela’s attorney during his trial. I remember as a child seeing Robben Island and learning of the prison that held many who are now famous and a number who have died.  During my political activism I came to know people who had served at “the university” as it was called. Colleagues and friends would just disappear without explanation. When they ended up on Robben Island they would be part of conversations orchestrated by the leaders incarcerated there.  And then, on being released, would teach those of us working in townships and squatter camps, trade unions and community organizations, giving us word of what the leadership’s plans were.  Each and every one of their legacies lives on. In South Africa during that time we were not allowed to have images of Nelson Mandela.  Possession of the Freedom Charter that became the most progressive constitution on the planet was grounds for being imprisoned without trial.  We were all imprisoned by the draconian system, even the most privileged, even those who never saw the inside of a cell. When I left South Africa in 1986 during a State of Emergency, and into political exile, I never imagined that in my lifetime Mandela would be released. I never imagined I would ever be able to return to South Africa.  I never imagined that my mixed race daughter would have children who could be friends with children of different colors and cultures.  I never imagined that South Africa would ever be embraced by the rest of Africa because it had always been such a pariah in the eyes of the rest of the continent.  I never imagined that the world would support the change we all fought for and made huge sacrifices for – my imagination was limited by the oppression I grew up in. One never knows how the tides of change will shift the sands.  One never knows how orchestrated insignificant acts can create a crescendo of change such as was experienced in my homeland.   There have been rare moments in my life, as a 5th generation white South African, that I have felt proud to have that legacy.  Today, my pride is mixed with a depth of grief because I am not there on South African soil, to be caught up in the crowds of mourners honoring and remembering. As South Africa moves towards a presidential election, may we all pray that the current  leaders remember that power is to be shared, not hoarded and used to corrupt. In solidarity with all around the globe who mourn with me. Lyndall Hare