Adequacy of treatment for serious mental illness in the United States
- PMID: 11772769
- PMCID: PMC1447396
- DOI: 10.2105/ajph.92.1.92
Adequacy of treatment for serious mental illness in the United States
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and correlates of treatment for serious mental illness.
Methods: Data were derived from the National Comorbidity Survey, a cross-sectional, nationally representative household survey assessing the presence and correlates of mental disorders and treatments. Crude and adjusted likelihoods of receiving treatment for serious mental illness in the previous 12 months were calculated.
Results: Forty percent of respondents with serious mental illness had received treatment in the previous year. Of those receiving treatment, 38.9% received care that could be considered at least minimally adequate, resulting in 15.3% of all respondents with serious mental illness receiving minimally adequate treatment. Predictors of not receiving minimally adequate treatment included being a young adult or an African American, residing in the South, being diagnosed as having a psychotic disorder, and being treated in the general medical sector.
Conclusions: Inadequate treatment of serious mental illness is an enormous public health problem. Public policies and cost-effective interventions are needed to improve both access to treatment and quality of treatment.
References
-
- Kessler RC, Berglund PA, Zhao S, et al. The 12-month prevalence and correlates of serious mental illness (SMI). In: Manderscheid RW, Sonnenschein MA, eds. Mental Health, United States. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1996:59–70.
-
- Kessler RC, Berglund PA, Walters EE, et al. A methodology for estimating the 12-month prevalence of serious mental illness. In: Manderscheid RW, Henderson RW, eds. Mental Health, United States 1998. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1998:99–109.
-
- Rosenheck RA, Massari L, Frisman L. Who should receive high cost mental health treatment and for how long? Issues in the rationing of mental health care. Schizophr Bull. 1993;19:843–852. - PubMed
-
- Goldman HH. The obligation of mental health services to the least well off. Psychiatr Serv. 1999;50:659–663. - PubMed
-
- Rosenheck RA. Principles for priority setting in mental health services and their implications for the least well off. Psychiatr Serv. 1999;50:653–658. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
