Sejersenhalvorsen6631

The mental health system is often not readily accessible, culturally responsive, or a reliable source of effective interventions for society's most vulnerable populations. Modern-era studies estimate the number of persons diagnosed with serious mental illness in correctional facilities is more than 3 times the amount in hospitals. Understanding mass incarceration and the criminalization of mental illness is imperative to address mental health inequities. This article examines the interplay of mental health and criminal justice inequities, the historical context for the prevailing extant approaches to correctional mental health treatment, and programmatic approaches to addressing these inequities.There are historical predicates for the inequities noted in present-day community mental health. Stigma has led to discrimination for those living with mental illness. It is more difficult for research to occur, and to access care (prevention, early identification, evidence-based treatment services) because funding is limited and workforce development curtailed. Strategies to decrease stigma are suggested, means to enhance funding are offered, and models for workforce development are noted. Different treatment delivery systems are suggested to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of culturally competent and trauma-informed providers, so as to maximize access to necessary services.The literature supports the effectiveness of systems-based integrated care models, particularly collaborative care, to improve access, quality of care, and health outcomes for behavioral health conditions. There is growing evidence for the promise of collaborative care to reduce behavioral health disparities for racial and ethnic, low-income, and other at-risk populations. Using rapid literature review, this article highlights what is known about how collaborative care may promote health equity for behavioral health conditions, by reducing disparities in access, quality, and outcomes of care. Further, it explores innovative intervention and engagement strategies to promote behavioral health equity for at-risk groups.Despite available treatment options for addiction, there remains an abysmal uptake of treatment initiation and engagement among varying communities. The existing treatment gap is based on historical occurrences, including discriminatory drug policies that have targeted communities of color with addiction. The current opioid epidemic and differential treatment therein exemplifies the severity of the existing disparity in addiction treatment, highlighting barriers such as institutionalized racism and vulnerabilities in the social determinants of health. To mitigate the disparity, an array of solutions to address these inequities are discussed, thereby providing a pathway forward to eliminating this treatment gap.This article briefly reviews the influences of protective and risk factors of child and adolescent mental health, and explores promising practices and outcomes of evidence-based programs designed to improve the mental health of youth, and the barriers for accessing quality and evidence-based child and adolescent mental health service delivery systems. The authors provide recommendations for individual practice improvements and policy, funding, and organizational practice improvements that will support mental health equity in child and adolescent populations.Racism is an important determinant of health and health disparities, but few strategies have been successful in eliminating racial discrimination from medical practice. This article proposes a novel antiracist approach to clinical care that acknowledges the racism shaping the clinical encounter and historical arc of racial oppression embedded in health care. Although preliminary, this approach can be easily implemented into clinical care and may reduce the harm done by racism. NU7441 mouse It could also serve as a template for antiracist service provision in other sectors, such as education and law enforcement.This article offers a brief history of mental health policies that have shaped current inequities in health care financing and service delivery. Mental health has a unique position within the health care system given the pervasive nature of stigma associated with illness; race and ethnicity often amplify this burden. The acknowledgment of disparities in mental health and the development of policies that address the needs of minority groups are relatively recent phenomena. Highlighted are legislative actions that have influenced reforms of the health care landscape. This text outlines opportunities to advance a targeted, community-based approach to mental health policy development.More than 47 million Americans experience mental illness each year, and more than 9.2 million suffer from mental health and substance use disorders. More than 60% of adults with mental illness and 81% of those with substance use disorders do not receive treatment. As the human and financial costs from our nation's mental health and substance use disorders crisis escalate, a strong business case to better address this crisis has emerged. This article describes the root causes and cost of disparities and offers an innovative perspective on aligning stakeholders to make the business case for equity in treatment and outcomes.Significant mental health disparities persist in screening, diagnosis, and treatment for racial and ethnic minorities compared with non-Latinx white people. Reducing mental health disparities, and ultimately achieving mental health equity, requires understanding the wide range of factors that influence health outcomes at multiple levels. Components of an effective strategy to achieve mental health equity include increasing population-based care; increasing community-based health care services; addressing the social determinants of health; engaging the community; enhancing the pipeline; and supporting a diverse, structurally competent workforce.In natural kind debates, Boyd's famous Homeostatic Property Cluster theory (HPC) is often misconstrued in two ways Not only is it thought to make for a normative standard for natural kinds, but also to require the homeostatic mechanisms underlying nomological property clusters to be uniform. My argument for the illegitimacy of both overgeneralizations, both on systematic as well as exegetical grounds, is based on the misconstrued view's failure to account for functional kinds in science. I illustrate the combination of these two misconstruals with recent entries into the natural kind debate about emotions. Finally, I examine and reject Stich's "Kornblith-Devitt method" as a potential justification of these misconstruals.