Evaluating the WHO Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems by comparing mental health policies in four countries

Hamada Hamid, Karen Abanilla, Besa Bauta, Keng-Yen Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Mental health is a low priority in most countries around the world. Minimal research and resources have been invested in mental health at the national level. As a result, WHO has developed the Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) to encourage countries to gather data and to re-evaluate their national mental health policy. This paper demonstrates the utility and limitations of WHO-AIMS by applying the model to four countries with different cultures, political histories and public health policies: Iraq, Japan, the Philippines and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. WHO-AIMS provides a useful model for analysing six domains: policy and legislative framework; mental health services; mental health in primary care; human resources; education of the public at large; and monitoring and research. This is especially important since most countries do not have experts in mental health policy or resources to design their own evaluation tools for mental health systems. Furthermore, WHO-AIMS provides a standardized database for cross-country comparisons. However, limitations of the instrument include the neglect of the politics of mental health policy development, underestimation of the role of culture in mental health care utilization, and questionable measurement validity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)467-473
Number of pages7
JournalBulletin of the World Health Organization
Volume86
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2008

Fingerprint

Health Policy
Mental Health
Macedonia (Republic)
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Iraq
Philippines
Health Resources
Policy Making
Mental Health Services
Politics
Public Policy
Research
Primary Health Care
Japan
Public Health
Databases
Education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Evaluating the WHO Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems by comparing mental health policies in four countries. / Hamid, Hamada; Abanilla, Karen; Bauta, Besa; Huang, Keng-Yen.

In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol. 86, No. 6, 06.2008, p. 467-473.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Hamid, Hamada ; Abanilla, Karen ; Bauta, Besa ; Huang, Keng-Yen. / Evaluating the WHO Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems by comparing mental health policies in four countries. In: Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2008 ; Vol. 86, No. 6. pp. 467-473.
@article{cab1774e783c4eeb89083b4d935e199f,
title = "Evaluating the WHO Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems by comparing mental health policies in four countries",
abstract = "Mental health is a low priority in most countries around the world. Minimal research and resources have been invested in mental health at the national level. As a result, WHO has developed the Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) to encourage countries to gather data and to re-evaluate their national mental health policy. This paper demonstrates the utility and limitations of WHO-AIMS by applying the model to four countries with different cultures, political histories and public health policies: Iraq, Japan, the Philippines and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. WHO-AIMS provides a useful model for analysing six domains: policy and legislative framework; mental health services; mental health in primary care; human resources; education of the public at large; and monitoring and research. This is especially important since most countries do not have experts in mental health policy or resources to design their own evaluation tools for mental health systems. Furthermore, WHO-AIMS provides a standardized database for cross-country comparisons. However, limitations of the instrument include the neglect of the politics of mental health policy development, underestimation of the role of culture in mental health care utilization, and questionable measurement validity.",
author = "Hamada Hamid and Karen Abanilla and Besa Bauta and Keng-Yen Huang",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
doi = "10.2471/BLT.07.042788",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "86",
pages = "467--473",
journal = "Bulletin of the World Health Organization",
issn = "0042-9686",
publisher = "World Health Organization",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating the WHO Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems by comparing mental health policies in four countries

AU - Hamid, Hamada

AU - Abanilla, Karen

AU - Bauta, Besa

AU - Huang, Keng-Yen

PY - 2008/6

Y1 - 2008/6

N2 - Mental health is a low priority in most countries around the world. Minimal research and resources have been invested in mental health at the national level. As a result, WHO has developed the Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) to encourage countries to gather data and to re-evaluate their national mental health policy. This paper demonstrates the utility and limitations of WHO-AIMS by applying the model to four countries with different cultures, political histories and public health policies: Iraq, Japan, the Philippines and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. WHO-AIMS provides a useful model for analysing six domains: policy and legislative framework; mental health services; mental health in primary care; human resources; education of the public at large; and monitoring and research. This is especially important since most countries do not have experts in mental health policy or resources to design their own evaluation tools for mental health systems. Furthermore, WHO-AIMS provides a standardized database for cross-country comparisons. However, limitations of the instrument include the neglect of the politics of mental health policy development, underestimation of the role of culture in mental health care utilization, and questionable measurement validity.

AB - Mental health is a low priority in most countries around the world. Minimal research and resources have been invested in mental health at the national level. As a result, WHO has developed the Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Systems (WHO-AIMS) to encourage countries to gather data and to re-evaluate their national mental health policy. This paper demonstrates the utility and limitations of WHO-AIMS by applying the model to four countries with different cultures, political histories and public health policies: Iraq, Japan, the Philippines and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. WHO-AIMS provides a useful model for analysing six domains: policy and legislative framework; mental health services; mental health in primary care; human resources; education of the public at large; and monitoring and research. This is especially important since most countries do not have experts in mental health policy or resources to design their own evaluation tools for mental health systems. Furthermore, WHO-AIMS provides a standardized database for cross-country comparisons. However, limitations of the instrument include the neglect of the politics of mental health policy development, underestimation of the role of culture in mental health care utilization, and questionable measurement validity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44949237975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=44949237975&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2471/BLT.07.042788

DO - 10.2471/BLT.07.042788

M3 - Review article

VL - 86

SP - 467

EP - 473

JO - Bulletin of the World Health Organization

JF - Bulletin of the World Health Organization

SN - 0042-9686

IS - 6

ER -