Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:01:42.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linking epidemiology and disability measurement with mental health service policy and planning1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

Rachel Jenkins
Rachel Jenkins*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
*
Indirizzo per la corrispondenza: Professor R. Jenkins, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF (UK). Fax +44 — (0)171-277.1462. E-maii: r.jenkins@iop.bpmf.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Objective — This article reviews the extent to which epidemiology and disability measurement can con-tribute to mental health and service policy and planning. Methods — The review explores the information required for local, mental and international policy and planning in a variey of settings. Results — Epidemiology and disability measurement are essential to underpin policy and planning that are responsive to local needs, together with information on service inputs and processes and health outcomes. Conclusions — Epidemiology and disability measurement should be an integral part of the policy and planning process to support the development of service, and service processes and the measurement of health outcomes for not only specialist mental heath services, but also activities in primary care, schools and workplaces.

Riassunto

Scopo — Questo articolo discute in quale misura l'epidemiologia e la misurazione della disabilità puó dare un contributo alia salute mentale, alia politica dei servizi e alia pianificazione. Metodo — La rassegna esamina le informazioni necessarie per una politica e una pianificazione locale e internazionale in diversi setting. Risultati — L'epidemiologia e la misurazione della disabilità sono essenziali per sostenere una politica di pianificazione che dia risposta ai bisogni locali, contemporaneamente ad informazioni sugli input e sulle variabili di processo e di esito. Conclusioni — L'epidemiologia e la misurazione della disabilità dovrebbero essere parte integrante della politica sanitaria e della pianificazione atte a sostenere lo sviluppo del servizio, i suoi processi e la misurazione degli esiti, non solo per i servizi specialistici di salute mentale, ma anche per l'attività nella medicina di base, nelle scuole e nei posti di lavoro.

Keywords

misura della disabilitàepidemiologiapianificazione dei servizidisability measurementepidemiologyservice planning
Type
Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , August 1998 , pp. 120 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Testo della lettura magistrale tenuta al Terzo Congresso Nazionzle della Società talianadi Epidemiologia Psichiatnca (Milano 19-21 Novembre 1997)

References

REFERENCES

Department of Health (1992). The Health of the Nation. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1993). Public Health Information Strategy. Department of Health: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1994). Mental Illness Key Area Handbook. 2nd ed.HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1997). Developing Partnerships in Mental Health. The Stationery Office: London.Google Scholar
Desjarlais, R., Eisenberg, L., , Good & Kleinman, A. (1995). World Mental Health. Problems and Priorities in Low Income Countries. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
Golberg, D.P. & Huxley, P. (1980). Mental Illness in the Community: the Patway to Psychiatric Care. Tavistock: London.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1990). Towards a system of outcome indicators for mental health care. British Journal of Psychiatry 5, 9–17.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. & Coney, N. (1992) (eds.). Prevention of Mental III Health at Work. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. & Warman, D. (1993) (eds.). Promoting Mental Health Policies in the Workplace. HMSO: London.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1997a). Reducing the burden of mental illness (Editorial). Lancet 349, 1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R. (1997b). Nations for Mental Health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 32, 309–311.Google Scholar
Jenkins, R., Smeeton, N. & Shepherd, M. (1988). Classification of Mental Disorder in Primary Care. Psychological Medicine Monograph Supplement No. 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, R., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Farrell, M., Gill, B., Lewis, G., Meltzer, H. & Petticrew, M. (1997a). The National Psychiatric Morbidity Surveys of Great Britain. Strategy and methods. Psychological Medicine 27, 765–744.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkins, R., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Farrell, M., Gill, B., Lewis, G. & Meltzer, H. (1997b). The National Surveys of Great Britain. Initial findings from the Household Survey. Psychological Medicine 27, 775–789.Google Scholar
Kingdon, D. & Jenkins, R. (1995). The Health of the Nation: suicide prevention in England. Italian Journal of Suicidology 5, 9–17.Google Scholar
Murray, C.J.L. & Lopez, A.D. (1996). The Global Burden of Disease. Harvard School of Public Health, WHO and the World Bank: Boston.Google ScholarPubMed
Ustün, B.T. & Sartorius, N. (1995). Mental Illness in General health Practice: An International Study. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.Google Scholar
World Bank (1993). Investing in Health. Oxford University Press: New York.Google Scholar
World Health Organisation (1996). Nations for Mental Health. Report of a technical Consultation (1996) Dec 1-2. WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar