Search

Background. Young people can receive mental health care from many sources, from formal and informal sectors. Caregiver characteristics/experiences/beliefs may influence whether young people get help and the type of care or support used by their child. We investigate facilitators/ barriers to receiving formal and/or informal care, particularly those related to the caregiver’s profile. Methods. We interviewed 1,400 Brazilian primary caregivers of young people (aged 10–19), participants of a high-risk cohort. Caregivers reported on young people’s formal/informal mental health care utilization, and associated barriers and facilitators to care. Data were also collected on youth mental health and its impact on everyday life; and caregiver characteristics— education, socioeconomics, ethnicity, mental health, and stigma. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between caregiver and young people characteristics with formal/informal care utilization. Results. Persistence and greater impact of youth mental health conditions were associated with a higher likelihood of care, more clearly for formal care. Caregiver characteristics, however, also played a key role in whether young people received any care: lower parental stigma was associated with greater formal service use, and lower socioeconomic class showed higher odds of informal care (mainly from religious leaders). Conclusions. This study highlights the key role of the caregivers as gatekeepers to child treatment access, particularly parental stigma influencing whether young people received any mental health care, even in a low resource setting. These results help to map barriers for treatment access and delivery for young people, aiming to improve intervention efforts and mental health support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a social determinants of health framework, we argue that the majority of evidence-based interventions focused on child and adolescent mental health are limited by their focus on individual youth (and sometimes families). While necessary, these interventions are insufficient for addressing the midstream- and upstream/macro-level determinants of mental health in society. We illustrate our perspective through four examples from youth mental health and related services, in which midstream and upstream interventions—i.e., at the community and public policy levels—need to be prioritized along with downstream treatments to improve population mental health and reduce social inequalities in mental health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]