Time for Action: A Case for Mental Health Advocacy in , .

Chinchu C1.

1 - Post Doctoral Fellow,

Women’s Studies Centre,

Cochin University of Science and Technology,

Kochi, Kerala, India

Additional Affiliation : Research Consultant,

Association for Social Change, Evolution, and Transformation (ASCENT),

Kozhikode, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address: Chinchu C.

Mullanvathukkal,

Kaipuzha North (PO),

Kulanada (via), Pathanamthitta,

Kerala, India - 689503

Email: [email protected]

Acknowledgement of financial Support : None

Conflict of Interest : None Time for Action: A Case for Mental Health Advocacy in Kerala, India.

Abstract

Mental health continues to be one of the most neglected areas of public service in India, even in its most developed states like Kerala. Advocacy services in mental health are also inadequate in availability to those in need. This call to action paper argues for a collaborative advocacy-through-action model of mental health advocacy for Kerala, with people’s participation as an important component. Kerala is chosen as the candidate for such a model because of its successful experience in implementing participatory development programmes. The proposed advocacy model can be extended to the whole country based on the feedback received from its initial implementation.

Keywords: Advocacy, Kerala, India, People’s Participation, Community Mental Health Time for Action: A Case for Mental Health Advocacy in Kerala, India.

Introduction

The idea of sustainable development is closely linked to the institutions and processes of public service, in discourses related to development (Leuenberger, 2006). However, with regard to the issue of equity, the focus of such discourses lies mostly on the equity between generations. The issue of equity within a generation is not accorded due consideration (Dalziel & Saunders, 2010;

Pearce, 1988). This anomaly has to be examined in the backdrop of findings that globally, inequality is rife, and is on the rise (Alvaredo, Chancel, Piketty, Saez, & Zucman, 2017). In India too, there have been evidence that huge inequality exists and is on the rise as well (Campbell,

Ramadorai, & Ranish, 2018). Within the context of the growing realization of the role of psychologists in the public service domain (Chu et al., 2012; DeLeon, 1988), it is imperative that the psychology community take up the mantle of advocacy in the larger interest of the marginalized populations.

This call to action paper examines the status of mental health advocacy in India and proposes a scalable model for the advancement of mental health advocacy, with a focus on the least privileged sections of the society.

The Mental Health Advocacy Scene in India

The role of professional bodies in advocacy is crucial, mainly because of their role in influencing legislative processes (Rieger & Moore, 2002). Given the lack of proper licensing system and regulations in the mental health care sector, professional bodies have an important role to play in the advancement of advocacy in the mental health setting of India. However, the present scenario is an issue for concern. None of the leading professional bodies of mental health professionals, including those of psychiatrists or clinical psychologists have mental health advocacy among their stated objectives, or major programmes. The number of NGOs with advocacy among their objectives is also very limited. Notable organizations working in the sector of advocacy include Action for Mental Illness India (ACMI), which was founded in 2003 and Center for

Advocacy in Mental health (CAMH).

A small but significant change has been visible in the recent times where advocacy has been mentioned in the agenda of some of the professional bodies in mental health. A notable event was the 44th Annual Conference of the Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists in February 2018, where the theme of the conference dealt with the role of Clinical Psychologists in mental health advocacy. Another important stride came with the presidential address at the 21st National

Conference of the Indian Association for Social Psychiatry, which focussed on mental health advocacy. However, these small efforts pale in comparison with the enormity of the issues in mental health sector of India. An advocacy movement which considers the specific requirements and challenges in India is essential for gaining the required momentum towards positive and constructive policy level action.

Mental Health Advocacy Needs of India

The health care sector of India relies heavily on the private sector. Public health system of the country faces a number of issues including low public health expenditure and poor performance in burden of disease rankings (D’Cunha, 2017). The mental health infrastructure and system of

India is equally - if not more – insufficient to cater to those in need (Ganju, 2000). Thus it is imperative that the mental health advocacy movement for India have a design that is different from those in the high income countries with better mental health infrastructure and service delivery systems. The prime focus of such movement has to be on the twin aspects of combatting the treatment gap and fighting the stigma and discrimination associated with mental illnesses. While pressing for actions and programmes, preference should be accorded to the most disadvantaged and vulnerable sections of the society who are susceptible to the problems related to mental health problems (Trani et al., 2015). This includes tribal communities, women from lower socio-economic strata, fishermen community etc. The demand for a focus on the marginalized communities is made because of the inequality that exists in the Indian society, especially with respect to access to essential services including health care. The need to ensure equity in mental health care is evident from findings that underline the relationship between indices of socio-economic status and mental health care access (Alegría,

Nakash, & NeMoyer, 2018; Satcher & Rachel, 2017). This relationship warrants more attention in the case of India, where inequality has been on the rise in the recent past (Radhakrishna, 2018). The problem of inequity in India’s health care system has also been previously highlighted (Balarajan,

Selvaraj, & Subramanian, 2011) with factors like high out-of-pocket expenses attributed to pulling people towards a vicious circle of ill health and poverty which accentuate each other. Recognising this issue, the National Mental Health Policy of India (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,

2014) lists equity as its first guiding principle.

Community participation is touted as an important component in the mental health care sector of India (Kapoor, 1994). More recently, awareness building and task-shifting to community level have been recommended as important strategies for a radical transformation of the public health scenario of India, especially mental health (Patel et al., 2015; Srivastava, Chatterjee, & Bhat,

2016). However, it has been pointed out that most of the existing community mental health efforts do not practice community participation in its spirit. Hence in view of the large treatment gap that exists in India’s mental health sector, the advocacy efforts should address the importance of participatory methods in community mental health activities. Also, urgent attention should be paid to the most vulnerable and marginalized communities of India, who have been denied proper attention with regard to health services (Khanday & Akram, 2012). A model for an advocacy movement is presented here, with a focus on vulnerability, people’s participation, and ease of implementation.

The Case of Kerala

The Indian state of Kerala presents an exceptional model in many aspects. It has achieved commendable levels of health indices, literacy, life expectancy etc. comparable to developed nations. The state has achieved this feat with a very low per capita income. The state is ahead in many areas when compared to the Indian union (Parayil, 2000; The Economist, 2010). However, this ‘Kerala model’ of development is not without faults and shortcomings. One important area that has been neglected in the development efforts of Kerala has been mental health. Mental health morbidity in Kerala is at par with the national figure, if not higher, and marginalized sections and women are more vulnerable. The infrastructure availability is also poor, even with a dedicated mental health policy in place (Mohamed, Rajan, Kumar, & Mohammed, 2002; Shibukumar &

Thavody, 2017). The mental health of the tribal population is an area of particular concern, with reports of high prevalence of mental illnesses, along with other forms of social evils plaguing them

(Shaji, 2018).

It is in this context that an advocacy movement becomes relevant in Kerala’s mental health arena. There exists ample evidence for inequity in the health sector of Kerala, despite its overall human development achievements (Jacob, 2014; Subramanyam & Subramanian, 2011). Hence equity assumes importance in the proposed mental health advocacy framework of Kerala. Kerala is capable of executing an inclusive community-based mental health programme given its successful experience in implementation of a participatory development programme (Jos & John, 2002).

An Advocacy Model for Kerala

As pointed out in the case of Indian mental health sector, an advocacy movement for Kerala should aim to ignite discussions on advocacy first, and incrementally progress towards a self- advocacy model, where those in need of mental health care or the ones close to them will be able to speak up for themselves. Optimum self-advocacy should be recognized as the end result of the movement. Existing evidence on implementing self-advocacy in mental health settings will act as a guide for the implementation of the project (Kleintjes, Lund, & Swartz, 2013). The discourse should start from professional bodies of mental health professionals including psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric social workers. These organizations have to evolve policy decisions to include advocacy in their stated objectives and programmes, in order to raise the consciousness of the society towards issues raised by the advocacy movement. Policy-level interventions can also be brought about by such initiatives. In designing campaigns and influencing policy decisions, lessons can be learnt from the palliative care movement of Kerala, which has shown rapid progress in recent years (Khosla, Patel, & Sharma, 2012).

The next step to follow is the community-based participatory intervention in mental health.

The intervention is to be designed with elements adapted from Kerala’s participatory experiences in local development and also the successful models of community mental health from elsewhere in

India (James et al., 2002; Patel & Prince, 2001). The various community level workers of the social justice and health departments are to be provided with basic training in psychological first aid

(Everly & Flynn, 2006), which will empower them to work as a bridge between those in need of care and the treatment systems in place. Imparting such training to community-level workers will also help in spreading awareness and combatting the stigma associated with mental illnesses.

Stigma has been identified as a major contributor to India’s mental health treatment gap (Shidhaye

& Kermode, 2013).

The participatory focus of the movement is mainly aimed to ensure sustainability and community ownership of the operations. Another important outcome will be the reduction of stigma attached to mental health issues. As with other successful models in community-based participatory research in mental health (Collins et al., 2018; Smikowski et al., 2009), the agenda and objectives of the advocacy movement will be set by the key beneficiaries. Following the models of the People’s

Plan Campaign (Thomas Isaac & Harilal, 1997) and the Kudumbashree poverty eradication mission of Kerala (Williams, Thampi, Narayana, Nandigama, & Bhattacharyya, 2011), the movement has to advance the concept of active citizenship, which is an integral part of a robust democracy. The key stakeholders in the participatory model are women collectives, self-help groups, and various community-level structures.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) working in the area of mental health have a crucial role to play in the phase of community based interventions. The grassroots-level experience of these organizations can be harnessed to carry the key messages of the intervention to the masses. The priority in this phase should also be accorded to those sections of the population that have been marginalized, and are more vulnerable to mental health problems (Khanday & Akram, 2012). This phase should also extend the mantle of advocacy to the key stakeholders in mental health – the intended recipients of care. The people’s participation aspect is essential to ensure this transformation of leadership. In case the recipients are minors or incapable of speaking for themselves, their caretakers or guardians should be given proper training in articulating their needs. Collectives of beneficiaries have to be formed and these collectives have to work in tandem with the respective local government institutions. Resource allocation for mental health services can also be scaled up through such alliances. A key aim should be to ensure that participants from every level are to be encouraged to be a part of the advocacy network so that there is perpetuity for the service delivery mechanism.

Conclusion

The advocacy movement should aim to achieve a state of optimum self-advocacy in the mental health sphere of Kerala, with equity as a guiding principle. Taking into consideration the huge mental health treatment gap of India, the movement should invariable linked with community mental health programmes at all levels. The key stakeholders in the advocacy movement are the following (a). Professional associations of Psychiatrists, (b). Professional associations of

Psychologists, (c). Professional associations of Psychiatric Social Workers, (d), Non-Governmental

Organizations, and (e). Local Self Governments and their affiliates such as the Kudumbashree mission. Joint action by these stakeholders can speed up the process of self-advocacy movement in the mental health scene of India. Professional organizations of mental health personnel need to realign their policies to include advocacy as an important need and this will enable them to take up a leading role in the movement for advocacy. References

Alegría, M., Nakash, O., & NeMoyer, A. (2018). Increasing equity in access to mental health care: a critical first step in improving service quality. World Psychiatry : Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 17(1), 43–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20486 Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2017). World inequality report 2018. The World Inequality Lab, Http://Wir2018. Wid. World. Balarajan, Y., Selvaraj, S., & Subramanian, S. (2011). Health care and equity in India. The Lancet, 377(9764), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61894-6 Campbell, J. Y., Ramadorai, T., & Ranish, B. (2018). Do the Rich Get Richer in the Stock Market? Evidence from India (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 3141759). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3141759 Chu, J. P., Emmons, L., Wong, J., Goldblum, P., Reiser, R., Barrera, A. Z., & Byrd–Olmstead, J. (2012). Public psychology: A competency model for professional psychologists in community mental health. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026319 Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Board, T. L. A., Straits, K. J. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., … Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. The American Psychologist, 73(7), 884– 898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167 Dalziel, P., & Saunders, C. (2010). Equity and sustainable development. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 5(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2010.035027

D’Cunha, S. D. (2017, December 9). Despite A Booming Economy, India’s Public Health System Is

Still Failing Its Poor. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/suparnadutt/2017/09/12/despite-a-booming-economy-- public-health-system-is-still-failing-its-poor/ DeLeon, P. H. (1988). Public policy and public service: Our professional duty. American Psychologist, 43(4), 309–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.4.309 Everly, J. G., & Flynn, B. W. (2006). Principles and practical procedures for acute psychological first aid training for personnel without mental health experience. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 8(2), 93–100. Ganju, V. (2000). The Mental Health System in India. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 23(3–4), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2527(00)00044-3 Jacob, S. (2014). The Kerala Regime and Regional Disparities in Health Infrastructure Versus Outcomes. India Review, 13(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14736489.2014.873680 James, S., Chisholm, D., Murthy, R. S., Kumar, K. K., Sekar, K., Saeed, K., & Mubbashar, M. (2002). Demand for, Access to and Use of Community Mental Health Care: Lessons from a Demonstration Project in India and Pakistan. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 48(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/002076402128783217 Jos, C., & John, M. S. (2002). Five Years of Participatory Planning in Kerala Rhetoric and Reality. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(49), 4917–4926. Kapoor, R. L. (1994). Community involvement in mental health care. The National Medical Journal of India, 7(6), 292–294. Khanday, Z. A., & Akram, M. (2012). Health Status of Marginalized Groups in India. International Journal of Applied Sociology, 2(6), 60–70. Khosla, D., Patel, F. D., & Sharma, S. C. (2012). Palliative Care in India: Current Progress and Future Needs. Indian Journal of Palliative Care, 18(3), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-1075.105683 Kleintjes, S., Lund, C., & Swartz, L. (2013). Organising for self-advocacy in mental health: Experiences from seven African countries. African Journal of Psychiatry, 16(3), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajpsy.v16i3.25 Leuenberger, D. (2006). Sustainable Development in Public Administration: A Match With Practice? Public Works Management & Policy, 10(3), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X06287496 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2014). New Pathways New Hope: National Mental Health Policy of India 2014 (Policy) (p. 29). New : Government of India. Retrieved from https://www.nhp.gov.in/sites/default/files/pdf/national%20mental%20health%20policy %20of%20india%202014.pdf Mohamed, E., Rajan, S. I., Kumar, K. A., & Mohammed, P. S. (2002). Gender and mental health in Kerala. Unpublished Report, Institute of Social Sciences Trust, . Retrieved from http://dspace.africaportal.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/21040/1/Gender%20and %20Mental%20Health%20in%20Kerala.pdf Parayil, G. (2000). Kerala: the Development Experience: Reflections on Sustainability and Replicability. Zed Books. Patel, V., Parikh, R., Nandraj, S., Balasubramaniam, P., Narayan, K., Paul, V. K., … Reddy, K. S. (2015). Assuring health coverage for all in India. Lancet (London, England), 386(10011), 2422–2435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00955-1 Patel, V., & Prince, M. (2001). Ageing and mental health in a developing country: who cares? Qualitative studies from , India. Psychological Medicine, 31(1), 29–38. Pearce, D. (1988). Economics, equity and sustainable development. Futures, 20(6), 598–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(88)90002-X Radhakrishna, R. (2018). Inequality in India: Trends, Emerging Challenges and Path Ways for Reduction of Inequality: Introduction to the Special Issue. Indian Journal of Human Development, 12(2), 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973703018794311 Rieger, P. T., & Moore, P. (2002). Professional organizations and their role in advocacy. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 18(4), 276–289. Satcher, D., & Rachel, S. A. (2017). Promoting Mental Health Equity: The Role of Integrated Care. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 24(3–4), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-016-9465-8 Shaji, K. A. (2018, February 24). Living on the edge. The Hindu. Retrieved from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/living-on-the-edge/article22846824.ece Shibukumar, T. M., & Thavody, J. (2017). National Mental Health Survey of India, 2015-16: Kerala State Report (p. 42). Kozhikode: Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences. Shidhaye, R., & Kermode, M. (2013). Stigma and discrimination as a barrier to mental health service utilization in India. International Health, 5(1), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ ihs011 Smikowski, J., Dewane, S., Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., Bruss, C., & Roberts, L. W. (2009). Community-Based Participatory Research for Improved Mental Health. Ethics & Behavior, 19(6), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420903274971 Srivastava, K., Chatterjee, K., & Bhat, P. S. (2016). Mental health awareness: The Indian scenario. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 25(2), 131–134. https://doi.org/10.4103/ipj.ipj_45_17 Subramanyam, M. A., & Subramanian, S. V. (2011). Research on social inequalities in health in India. The Indian Journal of Medical Research, 133(5), 461–463. The Economist. (2010). The Quality of Death (Ranking end of life care across the world) (p. 39). London: Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from http://graphics.eiu.com/upload/QOD_main_final_edition_Jul12_toprint.pdf Thomas Isaac, T. M., & Harilal, K. N. (1997). Planning for Empowerment: People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly, 32(1/2), 53–58. Trani, J.-F., Bakhshi, P., Kuhlberg, J., Narayanan, S. S., Venkataraman, H., Mishra, N. N., … Deshpande, S. (2015). Mental illness, poverty and stigma in India: a case–control study. BMJ Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006355 Williams, G., Thampi, B. V., Narayana, D., Nandigama, S., & Bhattacharyya, D. (2011). Performing Participatory Citizenship – Politics and Power in Kerala’s Kudumbashree Programme. The Journal of Development Studies, 47(8), 1261–1280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2010.527949