Resource round up and Centre update

During the election period we’re not publishing any new evidence, but we’ll still have a great line up of blogs, case studies and some useful resources to make sure you get your wellbeing evidence into practice  fix.

Workplace wellbeing
If you haven’t already downloaded it and posted it up on your office noticeboard (or whatever hi-tech equivalent you’re using), here’s our handy one-page factsheet on the latest evidence for wellbeing benefits at work.

And once that’s whetted your appetite, you can dip into our briefings on learning in the workplace and designing a good quality job.

Resilience in hospices and mental health in the media
It’s Mental Health Awareness Week, and we’re sharing two case studies that link with this year’s theme of surviving and thriving. Hospice UK give us an insight into a programme to improve staff wellbeing in an emotionally demanding environment. Meanwhile, Mind’s peer education for professionals is a look an an ambitious project that successfully challenged mental health stigma by training journalists.

Share your evaluations
We’ve currently got two calls for evidence live:

We will be putting out more calls throughout the year, and you can follow us on Twitter @whatworksWB for updates when these come out.

Other resources
You can find all of our evidence, research and guidance on the following themes:

Up next
After 8 June, here’s just a taster of what you can expect:

  • new evidence reviews on dance and sport and adult learning
  • guidance for community organisations on measuring personal wellbeing
  • a one-stop set of wellbeing indicators for local authorities
  • a round up of the evidence on green space and wellbeing
  • a discussion paper on community wellbeing.

 

 

 

 

A budget to increase wellbeing in the UK? #Budget2017

The purpose of our economic growth is to improve the quality of life and prosperity of people in the UK.  This budget has some potential wellbeing gains, but also misses some opportunities which we set out  yesterday. 

The Chancellor’s focus on opportunity through learning and training is backed by the research: evidence shows that continuing to learn throughout life is not only useful for developing skills and improving job prospects, it can improve and maintain our mental wellbeing. Unemployment has a bigger impact on our wellbeing than loss of earnings and it will be interesting to see what difference the support for returning to work makes to wellbeing of those out of the labour market in caring roles where evidence is currently missing. Likewise, the Living wage increase should see wellbeing impacts as the wellbeing impact of increased income is  greater for lower paid than better off, pound for pound.

What this budget does miss is mental health which has the biggest impact on our satisfaction with life – this is important enough that it deserves special mention.

Nancy Hey, Director, What Works Centre for Wellbeing

Work

Unemployment is always damaging to wellbeing. Men tend to suffer more from unemployment, however new evidence suggests women who are committed to their careers suffer more than men. Return to work is good for wellbeing but it has to be good work

Sara Connolly, Professor of Economics at the University of East Anglia. Work, Learning and Wellbeing Programme.

  • £5m for return to work schemes positive for wellbeing. Extended breaks in employment, especially when they are unplanned, have a significant and scarring effect on wellbeing.The support for working parents and return to work schemes could be particularly powerful for certain groups for whom wellbeing is lower. But there is no evidence yet about how the transition into and out of caring roles impacts wellbeing. Research in this area would fill an evidence gap.
  • Business rate changes help local employers. Support of small and medium local businesses through the Business Rates measures could have a positive impact on wellbeing – employees of smaller businesses tend to have higher life satisfaction than those from larger employers.
  • Self-employed are a diverse group.  Some evidence suggests that the self-employed in the UK have higher wellbeing, but one study suggest that the benefits of self-employment are limited to the better off [1] and those in temporary jobs have lower wellbeing. Flexible work is good, but lack of control in work is bad for wellbeing.

Tax changes for female self-employed might discourage women from re-entering or entering the workforce and lower wellbeing. The changes could also have negative wellbeing impacts for learners who are working self-employed to finance part time study.”

Kevin Daniels, Professor of Organisational Behaviour at the University of East Anglia. Lead investigator of Work, Learning and Wellbeing Programme.

Learning and Training

  • The Department for Education will pilot different approaches to encouraging lifelong learning. Evidence shows that continuing to learn throughout life is not only useful for developing skills and improving job prospects; it can improve and maintain our mental wellbeing.  The investment of £40m to pilot different approaches to test what works for different approaches to lifelong learning is a sign that better evidence is key to making better decisions for our quality of life.  
  • Changes to training has the potential to re-balance wellbeing gains for different groups. Currently, lower level and technical qualifications result in lower financial and wellbeing returns than hIgher education qualifications.

Will Vocational Education and Training shakeup convince employers that qualifications have value? If not could be bad for wellbeing of learners. Government investing in VET training will only be good news if young workers can find good quality jobs to put skills to use”

Olga Tregaskis, Professor of International Human Resource Management at the University of East Anglia. Work, Learning and Wellbeing Programme.

  • Education for wellbeing is missing. The most recent Good Childhood Report shows us that girls aged 10-15 are less happy than they used to be. Last year’s report showed us that England ranked 14 out of 15 selected countries for wellbeing at school. This matters for the current lives of these children but also for their future – self-control, perseverance, the capacity to delay gratification, and the ability to cope with shocks are strong predictors of adult wellbeing. A wellbeing budget would focus as much attention on building social and emotional skills as on educational attainment. Which will help with productivity in the long run – we know that increasing wellbeing in children improves exam results, future wellbeing and future earnings.

Community Wellbeing

  • Community assets matter. Local pubs, key hubs for community activities, will benefit from tax breaks, and it would be good if more social spaces – libraries, cafes, and other bumping spaces – could also benefit. Children and people from some demographic groups are less likely to access pubs. There was also no formal valuation of common assets – green spaces, shared community resources, heritage buildings – despite evidence that these are important for community wellbeing.
  • Volunteering and giving. There were no announcements on related issues that could help develop community wellbeing – measures, for example, to encourage volunteering and community groups.
  • Quality of relationships. Good partner relationships are second most important factor in our adult wellbeing, so £20m investment in measures to help women escape violent partners and rebuild their lives are welcome. These programmes speak to early years and the stability of positive parenting – protecting women is protecting children (a shocking 200 children are bereaved each year in the UK by men killing their mothers).  The quality of a parental relationship affects the wellbeing of their children and its violent conflict that is the most harmful.

The budget has missed the major opportunities to increase wellbeing: no large roll-out of preventions of mental illness amongst children, no large initiatives in mental health treatment, where mental health problems are a major cause of low wellbeing; no push for flatter and more trusting organisations and ways of delivering services; no strong push against inequality; no moves to push for more pedestrian zones, jobs near homes, cheaper housing, forced parental leave, or increased mandatory holidays, all of which are moves towards more contented lives that put more value on relations.

Paul Frijters, Professor of Economics at LSE and lead investigator of the Cross-Cutting Wellbeing Programme.

Health and Social Care

Policy that values what matters people prioritises dignity and respect.

  • Potential to improve work conditions in the sector. There are not two cultures in the workplace: how you treat staff is how patients will be treated. The quality of care has often come under scrutiny and many working in care homes are unskilled and hold few formal qualifications. The investment of an additional £2bn for social care packages in England over the next three years opens a window of opportunity if directed toward upskilling in this area.  and thus has a positive impact on those who are currently low skilled working in this area. Forthcoming Centre evidence show the wellbeing and productivity gains possible in this sector, through well designed training.
  • Dedicated mental health provision missing. The Budget did not set out any dedicated investment in addressing the increasing demand for interventions that improve mental health. Early years investment in mental health is key to ensuring wellbeing across the life course, so preventative measures and treatments should be supported.

The Chancellor’s announcement of an extra two billion pounds for adult social care is welcome, obviously. All serious commentators realise that there is a crisis in social care and that this puts huge pressures on the already struggling NHS as well as causing massive personal distress. And investment in social care is probably a very wise priority. We need to welcome this investment, but remember that social care, health care and, perhaps particularly, mental health care, are all crucial elements of central government support for wellbeing.

Peter Kinderman, President of the British Psychological Society, and lead investigator on the Community Wellbeing programme.

Overall economy

The OBR have upgraded their growth forecast from 1.4% to 2% for next year. The level of national income has surprisingly little effect on wellbeing, as long as it does not go down.

Most importantly, the government is not announcing that it will seriously start to experiment with ways to increase wellbeing at all levels of government: no major experiments in teaching, health, the organisation of the civil service, housing, policing, etc. So we are not preparing to learn what works and what we can thus roll out in the future

Paul Frijters,  Professor of Economics at LSE and lead investigator of the Cross-Cutting Wellbeing Programme.

REFERENCES

[1] Blanchflower and Oswald (1998) find a robust positive effect of self-employment using UK data. Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (1998). What makes an Entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics, 16(1), 26–60.

Alesina et al. (2004) find that the positive effect of self-employment is limited to the rich.

Alesina, A., Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and happiness: Are Europeans and Americans different? Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2009–2042.

Case study: Rethinking therapeutic support – Talk for Health

Our emotional health has the biggest impact on our overall wellbeing and quality of life, measured by life satisfaction, and is predictive up to eight years earlier.  Compared to employment for example, the third most important contributor to our wellbeing in adulthood, we know far less about how to improve emotional health.  This is why it is great to see pioneers building the evidence base.

Today’s addition to our case study database is Talk for Health.Talk for health

→ be one of our wellbeing pioneers

What is Talk for Health? 

Talk for Health (T4H) is a small but acclaimed Social Enterprise making therapeutic talk accessible, human and everyday.

Our vision is to build an emotionally healthier world by teaching people the therapeutic talk skills to give and receive effective emotional support.

The core Tt4h-quotesalk for Health training teaches these skills – namely, how to self-reflect and talk truthfully; how to listen and respond empathically, and how to participate in a structured ongoing group. Following this training, people can participate in our network of facilitated ongoing groups for wellbeing.

T4H is based on two powerful evidence-based principles:

  1. That simply having the skills and opportunities to share inner feelings and experiences with supportive others improves mental health and prevents mental illness.
  2. That effective therapeutic talk does not rely on professionals.

t4h-diag

Who do we offer it to? 

Talk for Health is based not on targeting troubled individuals but on building empathic community bonds. It has been found helpful by a wide range of members of the public, who are seeking greater well-being and connection with others.   Currently we deliver Talk for Health in Islington – funded by the NHS – and in Doncaster – funded by the Borough Council.

What are the results? 

We assess our results using the Outcomes Rating Scale (Miller, 2010), a validated instrument for measuring the wellbeing impacts of talking therapies.  Analysis of pre-post wellbeing in over 200 participants from our NHS Islington programme shows that Talk for Health achieves outcomes equivalent to therapy in raising wellbeing.  70% of our Islington participants are clinically distressed at intake and of these, 70% achieve statistically significant improvement with a large effect size.

T4H has been independently endorsed by leading academics in an RSA report Community Capital:  The Value of Connected Communities. In the report, Talk for Health was praised for its sustainable approach of building wellbeing by building community bonds.

 “Talk for Health has the potential to make a great contribution to social well-being by bringing the skills and knowledge of the counselling and psychotherapy field into the wider community. Research evidence indicates that people don’t have to be mental health professionals to be able to bring about positive psychological changes in themselves and others. Talk for Health taps this potential, and offers an accessible and exciting pathway towards greater psychological wellbeing for all.”
Mick Cooper, Professor of Counselling, University of Roehampston 

“Talk for Health is a truly innovative and genuinely original proposal.  As someone who has managed the largest psychotherapy service outside London, initiated CBT in this country and set up a counselling service in a number of GP practices, I feel well qualified to endorse Nicky Forsythe’s conclusions about the slow, costly and unsustainable nature of services currently offered. Talk for Health offers a fast, cost-effective alternative that would reach the parts of our society that other therapies don’t reach. I am convinced that the idea is classically simple and highly effective.”
Lionel Joyce OBE, CBE

Please join us

There are many other regions of London and the UK which need our services. We are seeking funders and advocates who can partner with us in transforming the mental health and wellbeing of our communities.  Please get in touch to find out more.

For more information you can visit www.talkforhealth.co.uk 

Reference

Miller, S. D. (2010) Psychometrics of the ORS and SRS:  Results from RCT’s and Meta-Analyses of Routine Outcome Monitoring and Feedback, International Center for Clinical Excellence

MIND (2013), We Still Need to Talk 

→ be one of our wellbeing pioneers

Guest blog: How do Mental health non-profits use evidence ?

caroline-fiennesnew-1
Here, Caroline Fiennes from Giving Evidence shares findings from a new study into evidence use in non-profit services for mental health.

UK non-profits delivering mental health services are not great at producing or using scientific evidence. This is the main finding of a new study by Giving Evidence. We interviewed 12 such organisations to understand their ‘evidence system’, i.e., how evidence is:

  • Produced
  • Synthesized
  • Shared, both ‘outbound’ from them and ‘inbound’ to them – and stored.GivingE1

These nonprofits talked of their growing interest in being evidence-based and focusing on impact (and we don’t doubt them) but in practice it’s not happening consistently. Some charities said that they struggle to find and use external research about what is effective in treating or preventing mental health conditions when designing their programmes.

One reason given is the difficulty of accessing, interpreting and applying academic / independent research – for example, much academic research is behind paywalls, so charity staff sometimes resort to sneaking into their former universities to read it, and certainly much of it is pretty unintelligible to non-researchers. Another is the claim that there isn’t much research which is relevant, although that claim is disputed by some experts and researchers.

However, charities delivering mental health services seem laudably interested in the views of their service users. Three-quarters of the charities we interviewed regularly collect user feedback, and over half have done so on a large scale.

Evaluation research

About half of these organisations are producing (or funding production of) impact evaluations, i.e., investigations of the causal effects of their interventions, and many of these seem to be simple pre/post studies, which are open to considerable errors. It may be just as well that not all of them are producing such evaluations, because doing unbiased evaluation research is a specialism which most service delivery organisations don’t have. Instead, they should (we would argue) be using reliable research from elsewhere, which few are.

One charity said that:

Evidence for us is what our users say works…that is enough for us

This concerns us, because the human mind is often misled about what works and only rigorous research can reveal the reality. Happily some of the non-profits which are involved in producing evaluation research are doing so in partnership with reputable research institutions.

GivingE2Undervalued and underfunded?

Sadly some charities we spoke to seem to be being forced to produce low quality research. Several told us that funders and commissioners require ‘evaluations’ of services but only put towards them budgets too small to allow for reliable research (e.g., with adequate sample size). Most were only £5-10k, and a few were £20-30k.

For example, one charity said that is has dozens such budgets a year, which is very frustrating because individually, those budgets only allow for research that is essentially pointless, but collectively they could enable something insightful.

Adding to the knowledge pool?

About half of these charities are producing the kind of research or impact evaluations which could be useful to other organisations. Plus, reportedly, “every contract specifies different outcomes, which makes it a nightmare to aggregate”(charity interviewee) and also prevents comparisons. We didn’t have resource to look at the quality of that research, i.e., to see whether it is reliable and useful. However, dissemination of that is weak, and that’s not really the charities’ fault; there’s no incentive for them to do so, and few channels anyway.

One charity said that part of the reason they don’t publish much is that:

We don’t want competitors to pick this [our intervention] up.

GivingE3We have encountered this in other sectors and this is a major problem (not of the charities’ making).

On the upside, amongst the charities that do produce this kind of material, we found no evidence of selective publication: we had thought we might find that material which is flattering is more often published and unflattering material isn’t, which creates publication bias, but we did not find this.

 

Brutal under-funding of mental health

This is all in a context of brutal under-funding. Mental health accounts for 23% of the UK disease burden, but gets only 13% of the NHS budget and 5% of the UK health research budget. Moreover, charitable giving to mental health is very low: it’s only £714 for every adult with mental health problems whereas donkeys get £2,047 each.

Using evidence-based mental health research to find out what works

Giving Evidence has long said that most charities should not produce causal research, which requires expertise that they don’t have and don’t need, but rather should get good at hearing from their target users about what they want and think of what they’re getting, and then finding and using causal research about what works in addressing it. That seems to be the case for charities delivering mental health services. Some organisations help with this, such as the Centre for Mental Health, and the Mental Elf.

We recommend that mental health charities work towards (and are funded and incentivised to work towards) finding and applying the relevant rigorous research, and working with specialist researchers to produce research where none already exists. We expect to work with some mental health charities on this.

Discuss on our forum

What works in research use? from our Science of Using Science project.

Caroline Fiennes Biography

Caroline founded and directs Giving Evidence. She is one of the few people whose work has appeared in both OK! Magazine and The Lancet. She is on boards of the US Center for Effective Philanthropy, of the world’s largest charity rating agency Charity Navigator, The Cochrane Collaboration (specifically Evidence Aid). She is the Corporation of London’s City Philanthropy Coach, and writes a monthly column in Third Sector magazine. Caroline was named a Philanthropy Advisor of the Year by Spears Wealth Management. More information about Giving Evidence is at http://www.giving-evidence.com/about

Guest blog and report : World Mind Matters day

On World Mind Matters Day 2016, a global survey funded by the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), of laws and policies in 193 United Nations (UN) member states reveals the level of discrimination faced by people with mental illness in the areas of marriage, voting rights employment and right to contract. The results were published as the ‘Social Justice for People with Mental Illness’ report in  the International Review of Psychiatry in August 2016 and include these findings:

  • In 36 per cent of countries, people with mental health problems are not allowed to vote
  • In nearly a quarter of countries, there are no laws preventing discrimination in the recruitment of people with mental health problems.
  • In over half of countries, there is no explicit protection in laws against dismissal/termination/suspension of employment on grounds of health reasons including mental health problems
  • 38 per cent of countries deny right to contract to persons with mental health problems

The findings have led the WPA to create a Bill of Rights for Individuals with Mental Illness which urges ALL governments to ensure that persons with mental illness/mental disability/mental health problems are not discriminated against based on their mental health status, and are treated as full citizens enjoying all rights on an equal basis with others. 

“Those with mental illness/mental disability/mental health problems have the capacity to hold rights and exercise their rights and should, be treated on an equal basis with other citizens. The challenge for policy-makers, clinicians, and individuals with mental illness is to fight discrimination using strategies similar to civil liberties, gender equality, sexual minority (LGBT) communities, which in many parts of the world have proven to be useful.”

Here, Professor Dinesh Bhugra CBE President of the World Psychiatric Association  explains why this is important:

Mental health gives us the opportunity to Dinesh Bhugra-photofunction well, look after others and enjoy life. Often mental health and physical health are seen as completely different and in isolation from each other whereas the truth is that one affects the other. We know that if a person with diabetes gets depressed then both depression and diabetes are difficult to treat. Mental health has several aspects to it including mood, thoughts and behaviour. Different cultures add a further dimension of spirituality to mental health.

Why is mental health important? At a global level we know that mental ill health causes a tremendous amount of burden which is much greater than that caused by heart disease and cancers. Mental ill health often remains undiagnosed and affects individual functioning at work and at home creating further tensions. Cultures frame our view of the world and create our thinking processes and the way we express and deal with distress.

When an individual says: ‘I feel gutted’ they are expressing distress similar to what a Punjabi woman says: ‘my heart is sinking’.  Childhood experiences combined with experiences of bad parenting can cause problems in adulthood. Over half the mental illnesses in adulthood start below the age of 15 and three-quarters start below the age of 24. Thus preventive strategies have to focus on the vulnerable age groups.

‘Wellbeing’ is a difficult concept to define as it has different meanings at personal, cultural and global levels. Personal wellbeing has become ever more important as longevity, conflict, insecurity and environmental issues increase, and social and technological changes impact on our individual and collective lives.

Prejudice, stigma and discrimination against mental illness delay help-seeking. There is considerable research evidence to suggest that early recognition and early interventions will get people back to normal sooner. There are different types of mental ill-health or mental illness caused often by a mixture of biological vulnerability, social and psychological causative factors. Social determinants of health include poverty, overcrowding and unemployment.

Stigma against mental illness is caused by lack of knowledge and often improved knowledge may lead to changes in attitudes and behaviours making these more positive and accepting.  In small cohesive communities whether they are related to residential settings or work-place it may be easier to reduce stigma and deal with prejudice. Three years ago when 23 members of Parliament stood up in the House of Commons and talked about their personal experiences of mental ill health, that turning point really changed the nature of debate on mental health.

Mental health is everyone’s business and we all need to take responsibility for our own mental health and those in our immediate circle-whether these are professional or personal circles.

Mental ill health and major psychiatric disorders are eminently treatable and many conditions have cure rates of 90-98%.  It is important that we understand the concepts of wellbeing. We must support family members and friends as well as colleagues who may be stressed and developing mental illness so that they are able to lead fulfilling and functioning lives and can contribute fully to their community and society.


Professor Dinesh Bhugra CBE is President of the World Psychiatric Association (2014-2017) and President of the Mental Health Foundation in the UK. He is the recipient of over 10 honorary degrees. His research interests are in cultural psychiatry, sexual dysfunction and service development. He has authored/co-authored over 350 scientific papers, chapters and 30 books and is the Editor of the International Journal of Social Psychiatry, International Review of Psychiatry and International Journal of Culture and Mental Health.  Previously he was the Dean (2003-2008) and President (2008-2011) of the Royal College of Psychiatrists where he led on major policy initiatives on psychiatry’s contract with society and the role of the psychiatrist.

 

Guest blog: What Makes a Good Childhood?

Rachel2Rachel Beardsmore,Senior Research Officer, Wellbeing; Children and Young People at  Office for National Statistics shares insights from the 5th annual Good Childhood report:

 

 

Today sees the publication of The Children’s Society’s 5th annual Good Childhood Report. The report highlights some of the key differences in well-being between boys and girls, including for overall life satisfaction, how happy they are with their appearance and mental health.

The Office for National Statistics publishes 31 measures of children’s wellbeing across 7 areas of life and our analysis of these measures supports the findings published in the Good Childhood Report. Using data from the Understanding Society survey, we found that in 2013-14, girls aged between 10 and 15 were more than twice as likely to be unhappy with their appearance as boys of the same age. Girls in their early teens are more likely than younger girls to say they are unhappy with their appearance; over 1 in 4 (26%) girls aged 13-15 said they were unhappy with their appearance, compared with 1 in 10 (11%) girls aged 10-12. The Good Childhood Report shows that between 2009 and 2013-14 things have been getting worse for girls, while for boys there has been no change. We found that teenage boys are much less likely to say they are unhappy with their appearance with just 1 in 14 (7%) reporting being unhappy.

Social media is an ever-present feature WBWKY1FQ2Iof social life, especially for the young. Our
research using the Understanding Society survey
shows that there is a clear association between longer time on social websites and symptoms of mental ill-health. This is concerning, as we have found that the proportion of children using social networking websites for over 3 hours on a school night has increased from 6% in 2009-10 to 9% in 2013-14. Further analysis shows that 1 in 5 (20%) teenage girls spent over 3 hours a night on social networking sites in 2013-14, compared with less than 1 in 10 (9%) teenage boys and 1 in 20 (5%) pre-teen girls. Less than 3% of pre-teen boys reported using social networking sites for over three hours a night. We are currently looking at further research into social media use and wellbeing as part of our programme of research.

The Good Childhood Report illustrates how children’s direct experiences, such as their perceptions of the quality of local facilities and how safe they feel, are more important for their wellbeing than factors that may be more removed from them, such as local area deprivation. Similarly, our research using the Understanding Society survey shows that a child’s relationship with their parents is one of the most important factors associated with their well-being. Around 1 in 10 (10%) children who quarreled frequently with their mother, and 1 in 12 (8%) who quarreled frequently with their father, reported being relatively dissatisfied with life overall. This compares with less than 1 in 40 children who quarreled less frequently with their mother or with their father.

Overall, the majority of children in the UK report good wellbeing. However, there are some aspects of life that are experienced differently by boys and girls and by children of different ages. Our research, and that of The Children’s Society, provides insight to policy-makers to ensure all children have the best childhood possible.

The  Children’s Society and ONS would be very interested in your views →discuss on our forum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Out of the shadows – World Bank & World Health Organisation on Mental Health

Guest blog from our Chairman Dr Paul LitchfieldDr Paul Litchfield

I have just attended a joint meeting of the World Bank and the World Health Organisation in Washington – the topic was mental health and the pressing need to make it a global development priority. It was good to see that mental illness is now, at last, being seen as part of the non-communicable disease crisis that is afflicting every part of the planet.

Margaret Chan, WHO Director General, flagged up recent research showing the global cost of anxiety and depression as being $1 trillion per year and  Jim Yong Kim, World Bank President, framed the issue as one of development and not just public health.

WHO & World Bank

The meeting, titled Out of the Shadows, sought to shine a light on a subject still characterised in many parts of the world by fear, stigma and neglect. Even in the “developed” world the imbalance of resources devoted to mental health compared to physical health is stark. Innovative models of service delivery were showcased from around the world and ranged from individual placement and support in the most deprived communities to high tech psychological therapies.

Workplace interventions are of particular interest to me but progress in that area seems remarkably slow. There appears to be a widespread reluctance by many health professionals to engage with the private sector, even in relation to companies’ own employees. Perhaps that is a reflection of a lack of shared experience and language but some of it also appears to be driven by political dogma which has no place in responding to human distress and misery.

It is heartening to see the progress that has been made in addressing mental illness over the past 30 years. There remains much to do but the profile the issues now have and the range of key players that see the need for action gives cause for hope. The downside is that the positive aspects of good mental health and wellbeing are only mentioned briefly in any discussion before the focus shifts entirely to illness and healthcare systems. The medical model of health that has dominated the past 100 years is not sustainable. Spending 17.5% of GDP on healthcare (as the USA did in 2014) diverts resources from other essential areas and untold harm will be caused to emerging economies that try to emulate the model.

We need to not only accept and address the social determinants of disease but also to reframe political thinking to consider citizens’ wellbeing as the priority. Having a positive – wellbeing – as the end point aspired to is much more motivational than the simple avoidance of harm – illness. Promoting the elements that have been shown to improve wellbeing will reduce ill health while at the same time advancing human happiness and societal progress. That has to be a better framework than one based on the fear of pestilence – whether that is physical or mental.

Dr Paul Litchfield

World Economic ForumAlso launched at the conference is the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Mental Health and their new guide for improving wellbeing at work.

Seven Steps Guide towards a Mentally Healthy Organisation

 

You may also like 

→ E-course on wellbeing in policy & practice

→ Case Studies wellbeing at work 

→ Wellbeing in the UK data