Frameworks for Impact Assessments on Mental Health and Well-Being

Jamie Eskuri^*
*Correspondence: Jamie Eskuri, Department of Neurology, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India, Email:

Description

Positive aspects of mental health emphasize the significance of feeling good and functioning effectively because mental health is largely influenced by the environments in which people live their daily lives. It can be challenging to measure the broad-based actions required to promote mental health across multiple sectors. An organized method for evaluating policy actions at various levels is made possible by a variety of Impact Assessment (IA) frameworks. Existing mental health and mental well-being IA frameworks and their applications were examined in a systematic review. From the databases, 145 records were found. Nine articles were included in the review, and another six studies were included via citation chaining and a reference list. Five distinct IA frameworks related to mental health were found to be used in a variety of contexts, the majority of which involved evaluating community actions [1]. The 15 articles included were summarized in a narrative synopsis. The findings emphasize the need for participatory approaches in IA, which also serve to promote the inclusion of mental health in policymaking and inform the IA evaluation. However, it is essential to ensure that IA frameworks are operational in terms of time and money and that they are designed to be used by laypeople in a variety of industries.

People's social, economic, and physical environments have a significant impact on mental health. As a result of this finding, people are beginning to see mental health as a problem that affects everyone rather than just one person and should be addressed by the healthcare system. Positive aspects of mental health have also received more attention, indicating a strategy that emphasizes not only the treatment or prevention of mental health disorders but also the significance of feeling good and functioning well [2]. “A state of well-being in which every individual realises his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community” is the widely cited definition of (positive) mental health. Although it is possible that this definition is culturally determined, it departs from a clinical definition of mental health and emphasizes the significance of everyday environments. Individual, community, and structural levels can all play a role in encouraging mental health. Measures like the WHO-5 and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well- Being Scale (WEMWBS) can be used to evaluate the impact or effectiveness of positive mental health interventions on an individual level. However, it can be more challenging to measure the impact of community-based actions like restricting access to leisure activities, closing a primary school, or altering national policy [3].

Approaches to Impact Assessment (IA) can be described as "the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action with the ‘impact’ being the difference between what would happen with the action and what would happen without it," with their origins in Environmental Impact Assessment. Despite the fact that it is frequently impossible to quantify this difference in a precise or linear manner [4], efforts have been made to approach this intricate relationship methodically. For instance, the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a structured, step-by-step method for assessing the health-related effects of participatory process decisions. Even though HIA practice has changed over the past two decades, people still don't know how to use them and don't know how to do it. This keeps new ideas from being noticed. IA frameworks that concentrate specifically on the effects on mental health are one of the HIA's offshoots. Mental health IA has received comparatively less attention than other types of IA, such as HIA or Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), despite the fact that mental health affects population health. Despite the fact that the variety of IA frameworks has been cited as a potential source of confusion, other approaches argue that specific, individualized frameworks are necessary to increase both interest and adherence. IA frameworks need to be clear and easy to find in order to be used in policymaking. According to Chanchitpricha and Bond, the effectiveness of various IA frameworks can be categorized as follows: (a) "procedural effectiveness" refers to practice and whether it is clear why and how IA is carried out; (b) "substantive effectiveness" refers to performance and whether IA is integrated into decision-making and whether objectives are met; (c) "transactive effectiveness" refers to proficiency and whether resources are managed efficiently; and (d) "normative effectiveness" This framework, which is still in its infancy, offers some guidelines for evaluating the suitability of various IA frameworks [5].

There appears to be a lack of information regarding the availability of IA tools related to mental health. The current study aims to conduct a systematic review of existing IA frameworks regarding the effects on mental health and mental wellbeing. It will also investigate the kinds of IA frameworks that have been utilized, and to what extent, across all age groups, nations, and contexts. The term "mental health IA" is used throughout this article to refer to IA approaches that place a general emphasis on mental health and encompass both mental health continuums, from mental health disorders and difficulties to mental wellbeing. A separate definition will be provided for each component of this umbrella term, such as mental health disorders or mental wellbeing.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Huppert, Felicia A and Timothy TC So. "Flourishing across Europe: Application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being." Social indica res 110 (2013): 837-861.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Forsman, Anna K, Kristian Wahlbeck, Leif Edvard Aarø and Graça Cardoso, et al. "Research priorities for public mental health in Europe: recommendations of the ROAMER project." Europ J Pub Health 25 (2015): 249-254.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Wahlbeck, Kristian. "Public mental health: The time is ripe for translation of evidence into practice." World Psychiatry 14 (2015): 36-42.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. World Health Organization. Promoting mental health: Concepts, emerging evidence, practice: Summary report, WHO, 2004.

Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Purtle, Jonathan, Katherine L. Nelson, Nathaniel Z. Counts, and Michael Yudell. "Population-based approaches to mental health: history, strategies, and evidence." Ann rev pub health 41 (2020): 201.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at