Hero Wellness Scale: Examining A New Mental Wellness Scale

Improving Medical and Psychiatric Outcomes Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Information about mental health systems is essential for mental health planning to reduce the burden of neuropsychiatric disorders. Unfortunately, many low- and middle-income countries lack systematic information on their mental health systems. The objectives, scope, structure, and contents of mental health assessment and monitoring instruments commonly used in high-income countries may not be appropriate for use in middle- and low-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently developed the WHO Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS), a comprehensive assessment tool for mental health systems designed for middle- and low-income countries. WHO-AIMS was developed through an iterative process that included input from in-country and international experts on the clarity, content, validity, and feasibility of the instrument, as well as a pilot trial. The resulting instrument, WHO-AIMS 2.2, consists of six domains: policy and legislative framework, mental health services, mental health in primary care, human resources, public information and links with other sectors, and monitoring and research. These domains address the ten recommendations of the World Health Report 2001 through 28 facets and 155 items. All six domains need to be assessed to form a basic, yet broad, picture of a mental health system, with a focus on health sector activities. WHO-AIMS provides essential information for mental health policy and service delivery. Countries will be able to develop information-based mental health policy and plans with clear baseline information and targets. Moreover, they will be able to monitor progress in implementing reform policies, providing community services, and involving consumers, families, and other stakeholders in mental health promotion, prevention, care and rehabilitation. This article provides an overview of the rationale, development process, and potential uses and benefits of WHO-AIMS.

Partnerships between mental health (MH) clinics and school systems in which providers deliver MH services on school grounds are growing. To date, however, there is little research examining MH clinic administrator perspectives on how this service delivery model affects continuity and quality of MH services among low-income youth. We conducted a state-wide (online and mail) survey of administrators at MH clinics (n = 60) to assess their perspectives on the advantages and challenges of school MH services for Medicaid-enrolled youth. Among survey respondents (n = 44), 86% reported that their clinic had at least one school partnership. With respect to advantages, more than four-fifths reported that school-based MH services (compared to clinic-based services) were very helpful or extremely helpful (versus not helpful at all, a little helpful, or somewhat helpful) for: (1) reducing gaps in MH treatment (86.8%); (2) improving communication between MH providers and teachers (86.9%), and (3) improving the overall quality of MH care (89.5%). In addition, the estimated no-show rate for appointments in school settings (7.2%) was lower than the estimated no show-rate for clinic appointments (23.9%; p < 0.01). Several challenges were also reported; more than two-thirds of respondents reported difficulties when delivering school-based services related to parent engagement (i.e., appointment attendance [89.5%], communication [81.6%], timely consent [68.4%]) that occurred sometimes, often, or always (versus rarely or never). As MH clinics continue to enter into and expand partnerships with schools, stakeholders should implement family-centered strategies to enhance engagement. Nevertheless, MH clinic administrators highlight potential benefits of school MH services (compared to clinic-based services) with respect to continuity and quality of MH care.

CPNP Announcements

Addressing mental health needs: an integral part of COVID-19 response.

Considering the culture of blame in mental health care and service delivery.

Mental Health Policy and Services Five Years After the President's Commission Report: An Interview With Michael F. Hogan

The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies that attention to the spiritual needs of the elderly with mental health problems is essential to good patient care, yet little evidence-based practice is documented in this field. This paper reviews the literature on the provision of pastoral care services (PCS) to elderly people with mental impairment. Integration of Pastoral Care Practitioners (PCPs) into the multidisciplinary team is rare. Research into mental health clinicians' attitudes to addressing patients' spiritual needs, and the integration of PCPs into multidisciplinary teams in aged mental health are reported and discussed. The contextual needs of PCPs in aged mental health, and options for qualitative and quantitative research are explored. Further research is needed to guide the integration of PCS into multidisciplinary teams in aged persons' mental health services. Copyright © 2011 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Suicide Prevention in an International Context.

Two years after SARS-COV-2 was declared a public health emergency, global estimates of excess deaths from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation indicate that 18·2 million people died due to the pandemic by Dec 31, 2021—three times higher than official records suggest. 100 million people have been plunged into extreme poverty by the pandemic, according to World Bank estimates. While the true burden of COVID-19 is being unravelled, is a mental health crisis being unmasked? The pandemic has exposed long-standing gaps and a global underinvestment in mental health care and prevention, disproportionately affecting young people and women.

Experts share advice on how you can cope effectively with the trauma and uncertainty associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and help others to do likewise.

Introduction: The shortage of trained manpower in the field of mental health remains a significant obstacle to the treatment of people with mental illnesses in low and middle-income countries. In 2010, a new Master of Science in Integrated Clinical and Community Mental Health (MSc ICCMH) program for non-physician clinicians was established at Jimma University to address this shortage in Ethiopia. This study aimed to assess the competency, satisfaction, and involvement level of graduates of the program.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among the graduates of the program. Data were collected with a semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire that was developed for the study. Responses were recorded on a Likert scale to assess graduates’ competency and satisfaction level. The quantitative data were summarized by descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies. Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed thematically.Result: Until June 2015, 32 trainees had graduated from the MSc ICCMH program; 87.5% (n=28) of these graduates participated in the study. Almost all (96.4%, n=27) graduates were working in public institutions. The majority (75%, n=21) were directly engaged in the clinical care of patients. Also, two-thirds of the graduates (67.9%, n=19) were involved in mental health research. All of the graduates felt confident in conducting psychiatric assessments of adults and identifying and managing common mental disorders (100%, n=28). Similarly, 100% (n=28) of the graduates reported that they felt confident in identifying and managing severe mental illnesses.Conclusions: The outcome of the program is a considerable workforce of skilled mental health professionals. The majority of graduates were retained within the public mental health service. Brain drain does not appear to be a challenge among non-physician mental health specialists. The findings on the self-perceived competencies mirror the amount of clinical exposure during the training. With a minimal revision of the curriculum, the level of satisfaction and competencies can be enhanced.

University students, especially those in the health sciences, face significant mental health challenges due to demanding academic schedules and personal stressors. The University Wellness Programme (UWP) is committed to enhancing mental health and overall well-being by implementing comprehensive interventions. The pilot study was conducted at a private higher educational institution in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, with 200 health science students participating. The study is expected to expanded to include 600 participants. A quasi-experimental field study with a control group and a cross-sectional design was implemented. Interventions included recreational clubs, life skills and mindfulness training, and counselling services tailored to students. Data were collected using a validated wellness assessment tool with high reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.912). Pre- and post-intervention evaluations were conducted over a six-month period. In the pilot study, 55% of students reported excellent overall wellness, while 15% reported poor wellness. Additionally, 20% of students reported experiencing high levels of depression, while 25% reported high levels of stress. Substantial improvements in students' mental health were observed, with reductions in anxiety, depression, and stress. The stress management sessions were found to be beneficial by 80% of students, while life skills training and recreational clubs received high participation rates and positive feedback. The UWP's comprehensive, multimodal approach effectively improves mental health and reduces stress among health science students. The program's success highlights the importance of integrating mental health promotion into higher education. In order to enhance the well-being of students, future implementations should prioritize expanding counselling services, life skills development, and recreational activities. The results underscore the need for tailored interventions to address the unique stressors faced by students, advocating for policy development and dedicated funding for wellness programs in universities.

Mental health and well-being are foundational to both individual and societal health and overall development. No society can truly prosper without them, as mental health is central to all areas of life and essential for communities to thrive. The unprecedented convergence of multiple global crises and shocks, including climate change, conflict and epidemics/pandemics, is having profound and direct effects on mental health and well-being worldwide, while also exacerbating and compounding social and structural determinants that undermine mental health and well-being1-3. Because mental health is deeply interconnected with all sectors, addressing these challenges cannot be the responsibility of the health sector alone. Action across all sectors is essential – not only to improve mental health and societal well-being, but also to foster overall development, promoting social inclusion, equity, universal health care, human rights, and sustainable economic progress. Yet, in most countries, policies, strategies and plans across government sectors – including but not limited to health – do not adequately reflect or address the determinants of mental health and well-being. To support governments in this effort, the World Health Organization (WHO) has developed a new Collection of resources titled “Mental health and well-being across government sectors”, a practical package designed to help countries embed mental health and well-being into policies across all government sectors. The overarching Guidance in the Collection supports governments to identify how sector mandates, policies and plans influence mental health, and provides practical steps to embed mental health and well-being into the development, implementation and evaluation of sectoral strategies. It emphasizes the role of structural and social determinants in shaping mental health and provides concrete actions through which sectors can contribute to advancing mental health and well-being. The Guidance highlights the close and mutually reinforcing links between mental health and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), showing that mental health intersects with nearly all of the Goals5. Promoting mental health supports progress on education, employment, justice, equality, climate action, and peace-building, among other areas. At the same time, protecting mental health reinforces the realization of international human rights commitments, including the right to the highest attainable standard of mental health. Given these interconnections, a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach is essential. This requires integrating mental health considerations into policies and investments across all government sectors, from national to municipal levels. Key sectors include: culture, arts and sport; defence and veterans; education; employment; environment, conservation and climate protection; health; interior; justice; social protection; and urban and rural development. The Guidance begins by outlining the rationale for cross-sectoral action, the development imperatives tied to the SDGs, and the core principles that must underpin any whole-of-government approach. These include a human rights-based lens, life-course perspective, attention to structural and social determinants, meaningful participation of people with lived experience, elimination of stigma and discrimination, and use of evidence-based strategies. At the core of this overarching Guidance are two key components. First, it presents a set of government-led cross-sectoral policy directives and strategic actions, focused on whole-of-government leadership, political prioritization, accountability and financing. These are designed to support national leadership in advancing mental health and well-being across all sectors and areas of public administration. Second, it offers detailed, sector-specific guidance for the key government sectors noted above. Each sectoral chapter includes an overview and a menu of policy directives and associated strategic actions, along with illustrative indicators to guide adaptation, implementation and monitoring. The Guidance reaffirms that integrating mental health into sectoral policies and plans requires strong political will, inclusive stakeholder engagement, adequate financial resources, and clear accountability mechanisms. It emphasizes that many relevant actions already fall within the core mandates of government sectors and can be enhanced through deliberate alignment with mental health objectives. This WHO Guidance provides a practical and flexible roadmap for embedding mental health and well-being into all areas of public policy. It helps governments identify shared priorities, coordinate action, and ensure that mental health is protected and promoted as a public good. Importantly, this new Collection builds on earlier WHO work. It should be used in conjunction with the Guidance on mental health policy and strategic action plans6, 7, launched in March 2025. While that document focused specifically on strengthening leadership, governance, service delivery, and workforce capacity within the mental health sector, the new Collection expands the focus to all government sectors. We urge governments and sector leaders to apply this Guidance in developing and implementing strategies that prioritize mental health and well-being across all government sectors, and to ensure that this work is grounded in human rights, social inclusion, and sustainable development.

Objective Implementation of evidence-based suicide prevention is critical to prevent death by suicide. Contrary to previously held beliefs, interventions including contracting for safety, no-harm contracts, and no-suicide contracts are not best practices and are considered contraindicated. Little is known about the current use of best practices and contraindicated interventions for suicide prevention in community settings. Methods Data were collected from 771 individuals enrolled in a suicide prevention training. Both mental health clinicians (n = 613) and mental health allies (e.g., teachers, first responders) (n = 158) reported which best practices (i.e., safety plan, crisis response plan) and contraindicated interventions (i.e., contracting for safety, no-harm contract, no-suicide contract) they use with individuals who presents with risk for suicide. Results The majority of both mental health clinicians (89.7%) and mental health allies (67.1%) endorsed using at least one evidence-based practice. However, of those who endorsed using evidence-based interventions, ∼40% of both mental health clinicians and allies endorsed using contraindicated interventions as well. Conclusion Contraindicated interventions are being used at high rates and suicide prevention trainings for evidence-based interventions should include a focus on de-implementation of contraindicated interventions. This study examined only a snapshot of what clinicians and allies endorsed using. Additional in depth information about each intervention and when it is used would provide helpful information and should be considered in future studies. Future research is needed to ensure only evidence-based interventions are being used to help prevent death by suicide. Highlights: The majority of both mental health clinicians and mental health allies use evidence-based practices for suicide prevention. This indicates good implementation rates of evidence-based interventions for suicide prevention. Approximately 40% of both mental health clinicians and mental health allies who endorsed using evidence-based practices for suicide preventions also endorsed using contraindicated interventions. A focus on de-implementation of contraindicated suicide interventions is warranted and should be part of the focus on suicide prevention efforts.