Adequacy of Treatment for Serious Mental Illness in the United States

Bibliographic Data

ID11027353
AuthorsPhilip S Wang (0009-0001-4227-5593, The authors are with the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Philip S. Wang is also with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School.), Olga Demler (0000-0003-3355-3210, The authors are with the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Philip S. Wang is also with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School.), R C Kessler (0000-0003-4831-2305, Brigham and Women's Hospital)
Year2002
Volume92
Issue1
Pages92-98
Publication date2002-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
PublisherAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.92.1.92
PMID11772769
OpenAlexW2101513837
LanguageEN
Citations received60
References cited52

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and correlates of treatment for serious mental illness. Methods. Data were derived from the National Comorbidity Survey, a cross-sectional, nationally representative household survey assessing the presence and correlates of mental disorders and treatments. Crude and adjusted likelihoods of receiving treatment for serious mental illness in the previous 12 months were calculated. Results. Forty percent of respondents with serious mental illness had received treatment in the previous year. Of those receiving treatment, 38.9% received care that could be considered at least minimally adequate, resulting in 15.3% of all respondents with serious mental illness receiving minimally adequate treatment. Predictors of not receiving minimally adequate treatment included being a young adult or an African American, residing in the South, being diagnosed as having a psychotic disorder, and being treated in the general medical sector. Conclusions. Inadequate treatment of serious mental illness is an enormous public health problem. Public policies and cost-effective interventions are needed to improve both access to treatment and quality of treatment

Comorbidity · MEDLINE · Mental health · Mental illness · National Comorbidity Survey · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Public health · Quality of life (healthcare) · Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development · Medicine · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Nursing · Schizophrenia research and treatment