Cited by 55Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth, Medicine and SocietyHistorical Psychiatry and Medical Practices

A critical review of the Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development: time for a paradigm change

Cosgrove, Lisa, Mills, China, Karter, Justin M., Mehta, Akriti, Kalathil, Jayasree·2020·Critical Public Health

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

Crossref · 10.1080/09581596.2019.1667488

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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