Showing posts with label World Health Organization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label World Health Organization. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

World Report on Disability

An article published in the June 11th edition of The Lancet:
Disability is a common, though uniquely personal experience that will affect increasing numbers of people as populations age. Common, because 1 billion people (15% of the world's population) are thought to have a disability. Unique, because how that disability affects an individual is mediated by environment and resources. For these reasons, the World Report on Disability, published on June 9, makes compelling reading for any citizen, and compulsory reading for health professionals, whose actions can moderate the effect of disabilities on people's lives.

Produced by WHO and the World Bank, the report is the first attempt to assemble best evidence about disability. The topics presented are not exhaustive, but illustrate barriers that can prevent people from realising their full potential, and provide examples that promote inclusiveness. The aim is to ease implementation of the 2006 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which established disability as a human rights issue. In presenting their findings, the authors mirror the philosophy of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) by using a multidimensional approach that describes different domains of function, participation, and wellbeing. As the foreword by Stephen Hawking states: “disability need not be an obstacle to success”, but it is essential to provide the right environment if people with disabilities are to live productive and fulfilled lives in comfort and dignity.

Disability is shared unequally. 80% of people with disabilities live in developing countries, where the rising burden of non-communicable diseases accounts for two-thirds of disabilities. Within societies, women with disabilities are more disadvantaged than men, and those who are less economically successful have poorer outcomes than those with more income. The extent to which a person's full participation in society is limited by disability is the product of various inter-related factors. At the core is a combination of attitudes, access (physical and intellectual), education, and employment. Whereas consultation, funding, progressive policies, and decentralised services (particularly rehabilitation) could promote independence and improve outcomes for people with a disability, such actions require infrastructure and political will — in circumstances where, too often, both are lacking. The report emphasises physical, social, and attitudinal environments that enable rather than disable people with impairments. One practical example is a pavement ramp to aid people who use wheelchairs to cross a street. By embracing universal design, a concept that creates a shared solution for many users, regardless of ability, these ramps also improve access for people with children in pushchairs. The same principle of an enabling universal design should apply to the internet, which is often criticised as difficult to navigate for many people with disabilities.

Schools and workplaces are other potentially disabling environments. Not only do people with disabilities have lower participation rates in both than do their non-disabled peers; children with disabilities have lower educational attainment. Lack of agreement about what constitutes inclusion and which governmental department is responsible for children with disabilities perpetuates an unsatisfactory situation. As primary education for all is a Millennium Development Goal, surely the right of children with disabilities to receive good education (including physical education) in an inclusive setting should be a priority — and a foundation for future participation and employment within their communities.

This report reminds health professionals that people with disabilities are entitled to the highest standard of health without discrimination. Responsibilities go beyond primary prevention of disability, for instance by antenatal care, or secondary prevention after a cardiovascular event. To provide best care across the spectrum of comorbid physical and mental disabilities, health professionals need a sound understanding of access and communication needs, which should be central to all curricula.

The report makes care and policy recommendations for practitioners at all levels, as well as calling for better public understanding. However, progress on the global burden of disability will not be possible without country-specific strategies based on good research. Currently, data are fragmented and too many studies are of low quality. To provide meaningful findings that inform care and guide policy, a common framework for disability is necessary (such as the ICF), as are reliable metrics and validated instruments. This approach will require leadership from a well-supported, innovative cadre of researchers trained in many methodologies, who can focus on practical questions of direct importance to people with disabilities and other stakeholders.

For The Lancet themed issue on disability see www.thelancet.com/themed-disability.
Also see:

Disability: beyond the medical model

Sunday, September 9, 2007

The Lancet Series on Global Mental Health: Article Collection


Well worth checking out - click here and here.
Launching a new movement for mental health

Despite the great attention western countries pay to the mind and human consciousness in philosophy and the arts, disturbances of mental health remain not only neglected but also deeply stigmatised across our societies. Viewed through a global lens, this marginalisation is only amplified still further. Yet the fragile—and utterly fragmented for the most disadvantaged—state of mental health services in many countries is not for the want of trying.

In 2001, for example, WHO devoted its World Health Report to mental health, with the optimistic message “new understanding, new hope”. Gro Harlem Brundtland wrote: “As the world’s leading public health agency, WHO has one, and only one option—to ensure that ours will be the last generation that allows shame and stigma to rule over science and reason (1).” As Director-General, she set a deservedly high standard for WHO and others to follow and be judged by.

Since then, WHO has continued to publish reports on mental health (2). But somehow the agency, through its leadership and partnerships, has been unable to convert fine words into tangible actions at country level. Partly this is because WHO has not backed its words with resources. And partly it is because WHO’s leadership has failed to build a sustainable mechanism across global and country institutions to hold itself and others accountable for its recommendations. This paralysis is surprising. Many low-income countries and civil society groups are crying out for help.

WHO is not the only institution with a responsibility to strengthen mental health services. The World Bank, country donors (such as the USA, UK, and European Union), foundations (such as the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations), research funding bodies (eg, the US National Institutes of Health), and professional associations all share a duty to make mental health a central theme of their strategies and financial flows. For the most part, these organisations have done far too little, if anything at all. In the past, The Lancet has tried to draw attention to mental health services in particular countries (3,4). With a Series of papers launched today from an internationally diverse Lancet Global Mental Health Group, to whom we owe a deep debt of thanks, together with a call to action and a commitment to track and monitor progress across a range of mental health indicators in the run up to a global summit on mental health in 2009, we aim to change this culture of lost opportunity.

The key messages from our Series are clear. First, mental health is a neglected aspect of human well-being, which is intimately connected with many other conditions of global health importance. Second, resources for mental health are inadequate, insufficient, and inequitably distributed. Third, there is already a strong evidence base on which to scale up mental health services. Fourth, most low-income and middle-income countries currently devote far too few resources to mental health. Fifth, there are critical lessons to learn from past successes and failures—for political leadership and priority setting, for increasing financial support, for decentralising mental health services, for integrating mental health into primary care, for increasing health workers trained in mental health, and for strengthening public health perspectives in mental health. Finally, any call to action demands a clear set of indicators to measure progress at country level.

During the next 2 years, The Lancet will make mental health one of its campaign focal points. We urge partners to join the broad new social movement we are launching to strengthen mental health.

Richard Horton
The Lancet, London NW1 7BY, UK

References

1. WHO. World health report. Mental health: new understanding, new hope. 2001. http://www.who.int/whr/2001/en (accessed Aug 20, 2007).

2. Herrman H, Saxena S, Moodie R, eds. Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice. 2005. http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/en/promoting_mhh.pdf (accessed Aug 20, 2007).

3. The Lancet. Mental health: neglected in the UK. Lancet 2007; 370: 104.

4. Butcher J, Samarasekera U, Wilkinson E, Shetty P. Special report. Lancet 2007; 370: 117–24.