Mental health is public health, too

This blog post was written and created by Elizabeth Golembiewski (guest blogger) - MPH in Health Communication student. 

“Is there no way out of the mind?” 

― Sylvia Plath

Like many people, I grew up thinking that public health was all about Hazmat suits and virus hunters and making sure the water was safe to drink. Not so! As we in the MPH program have the pleasure and also the pain—when it comes to narrowing our focus for papers or our practicum, that is—of knowing, you can argue that pretty much ANYTHING is related to public health!

But where does mental health fit in?? As both a risk factor for and an outcome of other somatic disorders, mental illness is a complicated matter. Public health interventions often are easiest when the problem is highly preventable and has a direct causal root—a paradigm that mental illness, given its blend of genetic, biochemical, psychological, and environmental risk factors, certainly does not fit.

But just like socioeconomic status, poor mental health has a pervasive influence on many other health outcomes. Research has demonstrated a relationship between mental illness and adverse health effects and behaviors such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, physical inactivity, and tobacco use-- to name a few. 

Mental illness is also common. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), our country’s foremost public agency for mental health research, around 20% of adults in United States have a diagnosable mental illness in a given year. Look around you the next time you’re sitting in class, or riding the Cambus—that’s one in five people who have experienced mental illness of one kind or another.

As with many other issues in public health, treatment for most mental health disorders is effective and available. However, most people who meet the criteria for a mental illness will not receive treatment for it. The reasons for this are numerous—factors such as lack of insurance coverage, the belief that symptoms will go away on their own, and stigma all contribute to this problem. 

Fortunately, public health efforts have recently begun to recognize mental illness as an issue that requires attention. According to the CDC, the challenges in this area for public health are to “identify risk factors, increase awareness about mental disorders and the effectiveness of treatment, remove the stigma associated with receiving treatment, eliminate health disparities, and improve access to mental health services for all persons, particularly among populations that are disproportionately affected.” 

At an individual level, you can start by taking the time to learn more about different mental illnesses, their prevalence and risk factors, and reading personal accounts of those who have lived with mental illness. I volunteer with our local chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a wonderful organization that does advocacy at the local, state and national levels—consider checking out their website for resources and information.

Guest Blogger: Hungry Planet

This blog post was written and created by Ann DePriest - a peer in the Community and Behavioral Health Department. 

It’s pretty common to see pictures of food scattered throughout social media. How many of us haven’t posted a picture of a meal we’ve eaten at a restaurant or made ourselves? Photographer Peter Menzel took this practice to a new level through his project “Hungry Planet,” a documentation of food consumption around the world. Menzel traveled across the globe, photographing what an average family purchases for groceries in a given week and how much they are spending on those foods.  

Flip through the slideshow here: http://world.time.com/2013/09/20/hungry-planet-what-the-world-eats/

It’s interesting to scroll through the images and see the differences in what people purchase. You see much more fresh food in countries like Egypt, Mexico, Turkey, and Guatemala. Mali, Bhutan, Ecuador, and Chad have diets that are much more grain based. The more industrialized nations, such as the United States, Germany, Great Britain, and France, feature more boxed or canned foods and premade meals. The costs vary as well. They range from $1.23/week in Chad all the way up to $731.71/week in Norway.

Food availability can depend on location, means, and what we consider to be “healthy.” This availability, through the concept of food security, has frequently been cited as a priority global health issue, especially in developing countries and as a way of creating sustainable development. The World Health Organization defines food security as “including both access to food that meets people’s dietary needs as well as their food preferences.” Food security is about much more than just having access to nutritious foods. It also takes into account if these foods are available consistently and if a person has sufficient knowledge to use them.

Although many developing countries are often identified as being food insecure, every nationality and culture has its own views on food. In our class on Designing and Implementing Interventions, we have talked a lot about the concepts of cultural humility and cultural competency. As public health practitioners, it is important to set aside our personal values and beliefs and have the cultural competency to understand these views when working with different populations about nutrition, especially when it comes to food availability.

Along with culture, it’s also interesting to think about how environment can influence the things we eat. In Community and Behavioral Health, we talk a lot about the environment as a determinant to health and well-being. Menzel’s project will be exhibited at The Nobel Peace Center as a way of raising awareness to this effect, especially in terms of how our environment and our culture can influence food costs and the nutritional value of meals around the world.

Government Shutdown and It's Impact on Kids

This week's Federal Government shutdown has been an eye-opening experience for me as a public health student. First off, I didn't even know this was possible! I was too young to understand the implications the last time this occurred in 1995-96, but I am learning quickly that without a federal budget there is no public health.
 
Not only are the public health programs that I care about unable to benefit communities, but academics at the College of Public Health who are trying to conduct public health research are stuck - waiting on grants and websites to be updated. I read an article yesterday in the Washington Post which really made me think about the impact that this funding hold will have on the programs and populations I support:

1) WIC - The Department of Agriculture will stop supporting the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, which helps pregnant women and new moms buy healthy food and provides nutritional information and health care referrals to those who need it. According to a Forbes article, over 8.9 million low-income women and children are at risk for losing their access to stable food supplies.

2) Head Start - 1,600 Head Start programs around the country providing education, health, nutrition and other services to roughly 1 million low-income children and their families. They will slowly begin closing during a shutdown. This is on top of cutbacks that have already occurred this year.

3) Disability Benefits - Social Security administration won't have enough staff to schedule new hearings for those applying for disability benefits.

4) [Childhood] Cancer Research - As long as the government is shut down, the National Institutes of Health says it will turn away roughly 200 patients each week from its clinical research center.

5) Public Health across the board - The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ contingency staffing plan involves furloughing about half of its employees - which means bad news for key public health services. 

In my LEND traineeship, we always talk about that, as future leaders in healthcare, it is important to have our voice at the table when major decisions are being made. However, I am left frustrated by this outcome since the populations who are most affected had no voice. I understand that government officials speak for their constituents, but who spoke for the children that are now affected.

So where do we go from here? As I was writing my grant proposal for class and struggling to access the public data that I have taken for granted so many late nights, I came to the conclusion that we need to continue to move forward. I will continue to learn and help those in need, even if the government continues to stand still. I will continue to advocate for programs, research, and health reform because our country is on the precipice of change, and true leaders push on - even if they have to swim against the current.