Mental Health: Future in Mind Campaign

Mental Health: Future in Mind Campaign

1.7 million is the number of adults who have accessed services for long-term or harsh psychological problems in 2013 to 2014, NHS Digital (2017). According to Collishaw et al (2004), there is evidence of a consequential rise of mental disorders over the last fifty years in young people and children. Mental health isn’t a rare problem yet, there is a stigma attached to the subject Chan et al (2009) alongside obstacles that make progress difficult for patients and professionals. Tait and Lester (2005) have identified four barriers that limit user involvement; lack of data seems to have the most effect. Equally, Rose (2001) found very little involvement of service users within seven different areas due to a lack of information and awareness; government campaign, Future in Mind (2015) aims to abolish limitations and complications in connection with mental health and mental health services. The Report is the outcome of a qualitative research conducted by the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Taskforce (2017) in 2014. In response to the study, the Future in Mind (2015) report was formed around five key themes; improving accessibility, prioritising care for the vulnerable, holding the government accountable, strengthening the workforce, and promoting preventative strategies. With the aid of government legislations and voluntary and public organisations, it has been placed into effect within practices across the country in hopes to increase mental stability and decrease identified concerns.

In order to diminish the worries surrounding mental health, it is vital to understand the causes creating the problem. Through the use of research, multiple theorists argue there is a link between money and inequalities in a person’s health. On the contrary, Beiser et al (2002) demonstrates an absence of influence between money and psychological well-being of children and young people. Whereas, the work of Aneshensel and Sucoff (1996) support this theory as they emphasise the importance of socioeconomic status as a considering factor when researching the mental health of individuals. This is further displayed within the Marmot review (2010) which explores the effects of poverty on children; a key theme emerged from the review is how health inequalities including mental health result from social inequalities. For example, the review accentuates how, the lower a person’s social status is the worse their health is more likely to be; he believes there are numerous social elements that contribute to the health of an individual. These include working conditions, housing, diet and education; which are also, well established in the report by Black (1980). In the report employment is the more dominant of the cumulative factors, as it incorporates the conditions of the work environment, type of work such as manual labour and exposure to dust or noise. In terms of mental health, Wilhelm et al (2004) claims stress is usually the most associable to occupation whilst other specific employment issues can lead to depression or substance abuse. Nevertheless, there is not enough evidence to generalise. Future in Mind (2015) is mostly based around children and young people therefore, there isn’t a lot of information in relation to work and its effect on mental health. Nonetheless, several mental illnesses are long-term consequently keeping work into account can be beneficial to the campaign. In the interest of tackling some of the issues recognised above, Marmot (2010) encourages the empowerment of individuals and local communities. Similarly, Future in mind (2015) aim to improve access, increase early intervention and develop the workforce through the enrichment of community involvement, ensuring the government are held accountable and encouraging individuals to prioritise their mental well-being and the health of others.

There are numerous reports and legislations in support of Future in Mind (2015) or the progress of mental health services and development of mental stability in general. The mental health act (1983) is a legislation established for the benefit of individuals with mental health problems; the act consists of the different rights of people in regards to assessment, treatment and services. Future in mind (2015) highlights the significance of an individual’s knowledge of their rights and what is available to protect and support them. During the write up of future in mind, various reports and legislations were considered; this includes the national service framework (2004). The framework is made up of eleven standards; the ninth standard focuses on the mental well-being of children and young people. A goal advertised within the framework is to include patients and their carers throughout the decision-making process; this allows families to be more aware whilst providing patients with the power to take control of their own care. The Equality act (2010) is another legislation in support of future in mind; the act brings together several characteristics including mental health to protect individuals from discrimination and unjust action. Lockwood et al (2012) supports the act and the role it plays for society in regard to protecting those with mental impairment. However, during an evaluation of the act by the Equality and Diversity Forum (2011) several questions had arisen; including, whom qualifies as mentally impaired by the act to be able to use its services. Furthermore, a review carried out by Perren et al (2012) shows how little impact the equality act has had on the public; the results show two thirds of respondents were unaware of its contents whilst a further 20 percent only knew the basics of the act. One of the problems Future in Mind (2015) intend to tackle is the lack of knowledge and awareness within communities. Mental Capacity Act (2005) is a legislation designed to raise awareness and empower individuals by giving service users the power to make their own decisions in relation to care and treatment. The act only applies to individuals aged of 16 or over, and whom may lack the mental capacity to make certain decisions. Various patients may undergo a capacity assessment that enables professionals to understand the decisions an individual can and cannot make for themselves. Although, the ideology of the act may be productive, several academics have scrutinised its effectiveness. For example, the House of Lords committee (2005) believe the act has not been implemented and carried out efficiently by professionals working with vulnerable adults; due to lack of training and understanding. Numerous researchers also put forward the issue of meaning. For instance, Clough (2014) talks about how the ‘best interests’ of service users has been described as elusive and without a formal definition or moral guidance to consider. This then leaves practitioners the authority to make choices for vulnerable adults through their own idea of the individual’s best interest.