A critical review of the Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development: time for a paradigm change
Abstract
In October 2018, the UK government, positioning itself as a global leader in mental health, hosted a Global Ministerial Mental Health Summit. The event was scheduled to coincide with the publication of the Lancet Commission on Global Mental Health and Sustainable Development. Despite claiming a public health and social determinants approach, the report focused on the importance of ‘closing the treatment gap’ through the use of Western diagnostic tools and interventions. In response, coalitions of mental health activists and service-users organized open letters detailing their concerns with the summit and report. Among these concerns were the ways in which recent UK government policies, particularly welfare reform, violated the rights of persons with disabilities; the lack of stakeholder representation and involvement in the report; and the continuation of the colonial legacy in which the ‘North drives the South.’ Expanding on the concerns raised by this coalition of activists and service-users, we argue that a focus on societal (structural) determinants and political economy could open new possibilities for global mental health beyond narrow individualized interventions. Additionally, we suggest that a politically informed societal determinants of health framework is needed in order to move the Global Mental Health Movement in a more emancipatory direction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
It has been the focus of recent calls for a paradigm change in the field of global mental health, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It has been the focus of recent calls for a paradigm change in the field of global mental health (106–108), particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (109).”
From Recovery from Severe Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review of Service User and Informal Caregiver Perspectives (2021) · cites this paper as [108]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 55
- Authors
- Cosgrove, L., Mills, C., Karter, J. M., Mehta, A., & Kalathil, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
- University of London (GB)
- King's College London (GB)
- Independent Researcher, London, UK
- Corresponding author
- Karter, Justin M.
- Venue
- Critical Public Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2019-09-18
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 624-631
- ISSN
- 0958-1596 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3682
- OpenAlex
- W2974805606
- Cited by
- 55
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Critical Public Health (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Open Society Foundations (S20190000041949)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices
- Keywords
- global mental health, treatment gap, structural determinants of health, political economy, colonial legacy, welfare reform, people with disabilities, mental health activism, service users, sustainable development, stakeholder representation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review