Solutions for Systemic Anxiety

By Pierce K. Kozlowski

The Policy Approach

As mentioned in a previous article, anxiety has become commonplace across America’s major demographics—most notably in college students. This is an ongoing problem, and it can be approached from multiple angles with a variety of different measures. One of those measures comes in the form of policy prescriptions or government legislation. Seeking solutional policy will have a broader impact while still directly addressing the problem of widespread anxiety. Fortunately, there are four workable methods of attack.

First, there ought to be a mixed system of services that cater to a wide range of medical health conditions. The more common and inexpensive conditions would lie at the base of the pyramid, whereas the rarer and more expensive conditions would lie at the peak of the pyramid. The World Health Organization, in 2012, outlined the basic framework for such a system, and coined it as an “optimal mix of services pyramid.” To create this reality, policies designed to “limit the number of mental hospitals, build community mental health services; develop mental health services in general hospitals; integrate mental health services into primary health care; build informal community mental health services; and promote self-care” would help in effectuating solutions for growing mental health concerns.

Second, a program needs to be created which improves the delivery of health services. The Mental Health Global Action Programme–created by the World Health Organization–has laid fourth four courses of action to markedly improve the delivery of medical services: First, “increasing and improving information for decision-making and technology transfer to increase country capacity;” second, “raising awareness about mental disorders through education and advocacy for more respect of human rights and less stigma;” third, “assisting countries in designing policies and developing comprehensive and effective mental health services;” and finally, “building local capacity for public mental health research in poor countries.” Policies aimed towards that end are going to result in a quality increase in the distribution and delivery of necessary mental health services across all demographics.

Third, identifying particular benchmarks or standards of comparison between different healthcare systems can be used to help measure the quality and success of available medical services. The Lancet Mental Health Group, headed by Dr. Chisholm, found 11 indicators to objectively measure the progress of the country’s health care goals. In addition to this, Chisholm posited that those indicators can help measure progress towards “sufficient planning and investment for mental health care,” “sufficient workforce to provide mental health services,” “consistency of mental health care inputs and processes with best practice and human-rights protection,” and finally, “improved outcomes for people with mental disorders.”

Local Involvement and Political Grassroots

While the last three points are all good and nice, they do not account for how we as individuals can actually go about taking steps to help pave a path for such policies. Most of us are not wealthy private citizens who have the capacity to leverage special interests; most of us do not have the purchasing power to influence our preferred politicians to take a specific course of action in the benefit of our interest. Therefore, the grassroots is where you would build and forge a movement dedicated to the reform and effectuation of mental health policy. Certain movements are palatable to the public because they speak to some kind of truth. That is what turns the observers into supporters.

Mobilizing around a common goal is unifying and powerful. To build such a movement, however, certain actions must be taken. Those actions include, but are not limited to, hosting larger meetings, plastering posters, creating petition signings, establishing information tables, raising money from small donors for advertising and campaigning, organizing public demonstrations, and incentivizing individuals to speak with publications or their local officials to implement the desired policy prescription their respective movement is rallied around. The key to influencing the modern politician is by becoming favorable in the eyes of the public through a larger movement that has mobilized with admirable passion.

Expanding mental health services beyond medical institutions and into personal communities is important, especially in wake of the 2020 pandemic—which, according to the Centers for Disease and Prevention, has disproportionately affected children and has increased emergency rooms visits related to mental health. The Brookings Institution makes this very point, explaining that “expanding access to mental health and addiction services, especially services that are available in communities, rather than in hospitals and residential facilities, is a national imperative.” Effectively, the four solutions listed above are aimed at just that: improving the access, delivery, and general quality of services to all demographics in the hopes of lowering general anxiety, whilst simultaneously counteracting the secondary consequences anxiety causes in individuals (e.g., suicidal ideations, substance abuse, social isolation . . . etc, etc.)

These are potential methods of attack in terms of addressing mental health in a public capacity—which would help foster inclusivity with folks who struggle with diagnosed or undiagnosed mental conditions impacting their capacity to function in their most optimal capacity—and what could be reasonably recommend to anyone else with a similar goal of reforming mental health care.

References

1. Chisholm D; Flisher AJ; Lund C; Patel V; Saxena S; Thornicroft G; Tomlinson M; “Scale up Services for Mental Disorders: A Call for Action.” Lancet (London, England), U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2007, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17804059/.

2. Investing in Mental Health - World Health Organization. 2003, www.who.int/mental_health/media/investing_mnh.pdf.

3. “Mental Health–Related Emergency Department Visits among Children Aged 18 Years during the Covid-19 Pandemic - United States, January 1–October 17, 2020.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 12 Nov. 2020, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945a3.htm.

4. Optimal Mix of Services 4sept2007 - World Health Organization. 2007, www.who.int/mental_health/policy/services/2_Optimal%20Mix%20of%20Services_Infosheet.pdf.