Democracy: the forgotten determinant of mental health

Administrative law as a determinant of public health

Administrative law comprises the rules, values, and processes by which government and regulatory decision-making is subject to administrative monitoring, review, and accountability. It impacts public health in two ways: through the design, powers, and processes of institutions that enforce administrative law; and through the substantive rules of administrative law. Yet despite its fundamental regulation of the way in which public health decisions are made, insufficient research has been conducted on administrative law as a determinant of public health. Administrative law and public health operate as siloed academic disciplines with very little cross-disciplinary collaboration, engagement, or understanding. This results in major, untapped research opportunities exploring how administrative law could contribute to an optimized model of planetary health in both higher income and lower-middle income countries. Put simply, a holistic, global view of the determinants of public health must take due account of the accountability rules and controls that regulate how public health, and other, decisions are made. This commentary is a call to action to better understand how administrative law mechanisms, such as judicial review, administrative tribunals, ombudsmen, information commissioners, public auditors, and human rights monitors, can be designed or redesigned to better promote sustainable public health outcomes.

Electoral Democracy and Working-Age Mortality

Policy Points The erosion of electoral democracy in the United States in recent decades may have contributed to the high and rising working-age mortality rates, which predate the COVID-19 pandemic. Eroding electoral democracy in a US state was associated with higher working-age mortality from homicide, suicide, and especially from drug poisoning and infectious disease. State and federal efforts to strengthen electoral democracy, such as banning partisan gerrymandering, improving voter enfranchisement, and reforming campaign finance laws, could potentially avert thousands of deaths each year among working-age adults.

CONTEXT

Working-age mortality rates are high and rising in the United States, an alarming fact that predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Although several reasons for the high and rising rates have been hypothesized, the potential role of democratic erosion has been overlooked. This study examined the association between electoral democracy and working-age mortality and assessed how economic, behavioral, and social factors may have contributed to it.

METHODS

We used the State Democracy Index (SDI), an annual summary of each state's electoral democracy from 2000 to 2018. We merged the SDI with annual age-adjusted mortality rates for adults 25-64 years in each state. Models estimated the association between the SDI and working-age mortality (from all causes and six specific causes) within states, adjusting for political party control, safety net generosity, union coverage, immigrant population, and stable characteristics of states. We assessed whether economic (income, unemployment), behavioral (alcohol consumption, sleep), and social (marriage, violent crime, incarceration) factors accounted for the association.

FINDINGS

Increasing electoral democracy in a state from a moderate level (defined as the third quintile of the SDI distribution) to a high level (defined as the fifth quintile) was associated with an estimated 3.2% and 2.7% lower mortality rate among working-age men and women, respectively, over the next year. Increasing electoral democracy in all states from the third to the fifth quintile of the SDI distribution may have resulted in 20,408 fewer working-age deaths in 2019. The democracy-mortality association mainly reflected social factors and, to a lesser extent, health behaviors. Increasing electoral democracy in a state was mostly strongly associated with lower mortality from drug poisoning and infectious diseases, followed by reductions in homicide and suicide.

CONCLUSIONS

Erosion of electoral democracy is a threat to population health. This study adds to growing evidence that electoral democracy and population health are inextricably linked.

Finding the right words: Articulating the value of mental health promotion. A focus group study

The Lapinlahti Hospital initiative in Helsinki has transformed a disused psychiatric hospital into an open site for mental health promotion. The current study uses qualitative methods to explore how the initiative may promote population mental health. The phenomenological study comprised of data from 7 focus group including 28 participants. Resulting data were thematically analysed to articulate how the initiative supports mental wellbeing in different ways. Mental health benefits were categorized into three themes; mental health value, civil values and common values which were comprised of nine subthemes; paradigm shift, social inclusion, personal meaning, regeneration, ambience, stigma, sustainability, democracy and environment. Mental health promotion emphasises the impact of daily environments in which people live their lives. Results from this study support the use of broad based actions which promote different components of mental wellbeing simultaneously. Psychiatric hospitals may offer historically meaningful sites for such actions.

A Scoping Review and Narrative Synthesis Comparing the Constructs of Social Determinants of Health and Social Determinants of Mental Health: Matryoshka or Two Independent Constructs?

Background

Many health research policies invoke the construct of Social Determinants of Health, and more recently the construct of Social Determinants of Mental Health. While frequently referred to in the literature, it is unclear how these constructs relate to each other. Some commentators conceptualise the Determinants of Mental Health as a subgroup of the Determinants of general Health and others describe the Determinants of Mental Health as an autonomous construct. The current review investigates the relationship between both constructs.

Methods

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted for both constructs separately within seven electronic databases. A template analysis was conducted to compare the conceptualisations of the Social Determinants of Health and the Social Determinants of Mental Health.

Results

Of 4250 search results, 50 papers (25 for each construct) fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were incorporated into a narrative synthesis. Discussions of the Social Determinants of both general and Mental Health listed the same determinants. Both constructs were conceptualised on multiple levels and factors. Stress and health behaviour were also described as mediators for both constructs. The constructs differed, however, with respect to two components of their aetiologies and epistemologies. First, the causal mechanisms invoked for the Determinants of general Health followed predominantly direct pathways, in contrast to indirect pathways for the Social Determinants of Mental Health. Second, the Social Determinants of Mental Health were reported to influence mental health mediated through individuals' perceptions and appraisal processes. Appraisal processes were considered of far less relevance in the construct of Social Determinants of Health.

Conclusion

The constructs of Social Determinants of Health and Social Determinants of Mental Health align in many respects but differ on important aetiological and epistemological grounds. Similar social factors are considered important, but whereas physical health conditions are primarily conceptualised to be driven by objective realities, mental health is explained mainly in terms of perception of these realities. This differentiation between physical and mental health is in line with a modern understanding of mind-body-dualism, the naturalistic dualism after Chalmers. Differentiating the Social Determinants of Mental Health from the Social Determinants of Health might bear relevance for policy making and research.

Economist intelligence unit democracy index in relation to health services accessibility: a regression analysis

BACKGROUND

The relationship between political environment and health services accessibility (HSA) has not been the focus of any specific studies. The purpose of this study was to address this gap in the literature by examining the relationship between political environment and HSA.

METHODS

This relationship that HSA indicators (physicians, nurses and hospital beds per 10 000 people) has with political environment was analyzed with multiple least-squares regression using the components of democracy (electoral processes and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties). The components of democracy were represented by the 2011 Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index (EIUDI) sub-scores. The EIUDI sub-scores and the HSA indicators were evaluated for significant relationships with multiple least-squares regression.

RESULTS

While controlling for a country's geographic location and level of democracy, we found that two components of a nation's political environment: functioning of government and political participation, and their interaction had significant relationships with the three HSA indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

These study findings are of significance to health professionals because they examine the political contexts in which citizens access health services, they come from research that is the first of its kind, and they help explain the effect political environment has on health.

Advocacy: critical component in a comprehensive mental health system

Although rights protection and best interest perspectives are frequently viewed as diametric opposites, mental health advocacy is an important strategy in pursuit of both civil rights and therapeutic goals for people with mental illness. Independent, client-centered advocacy supports the attainment of consumer-identified goals for recovery, equality, and social inclusion and mitigates the negative consequences of stigma and discrimination. Advocacy strives to return decision-making authority to consumers and thus to empower them to play a more central role in their own care, treatment, rehabilitation, and life choices.