Search

The fields of psychiatry and mental health are increasingly recognizing the importance of social determinants of health (SDOH) and their impact on mental health outcomes. In this overview, the authors discuss the recent research, from the past 5 years, on advances made in SDOH work. SDOH frameworks and theories have expanded to include more social conditions, from traumas associated with immigration to psychosocial and community strengths, that impact mental health and well-being. Research has consistently shown the pervasive deleterious impacts of inequitable social conditions (e.g., food insecurity, housing instability) on minoritized populations' physical and mental health. Social systems of oppression (e.g., racism, minoritization) have also been shown to confer higher risk for psychiatric and mental disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated the inequitable impact of the social determinants of health outcomes. More efforts have been made in recent years to intervene on the social determinants through interventions at the individual, community, and policy levels, which have shown promise in improving mental health outcomes in marginalized populations. However, major gaps remain. Attention should be paid to developing guiding frameworks that incorporate equity and antiracism when designing SDOH interventions and improving methodological approaches for evaluating these interventions. In addition, structural-level and policy-level SDOH efforts are critical for making long-lasting and impactful advances toward mental health equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Biden-Harris Administration's FY22 budget includes $1.6 billion for the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant program, more than double the FY21 allocation, given the rising mental health crises observed across the nation. This is timely since there have been two interrelated paradigm shifts: one giving attention to the role of the environmental context as central in mental health outcomes, the other moving upstream to earlier mental health interventions at the community level rather than only at the individual level. An opportunity to reimagine and redesign the agenda of mental health research and service delivery with marginalized communities opens the door to more community-based care interventions. This involves establishing multisector partnerships to address the social and psychological needs that can be addressed at the community level rather than the clinical level. This will require a shift in training, delivery systems, and reimbursement models. The authors describe the scientific evidence justifying these programs and elaborate on opportunities to target investments in community mental health that can reduce disparities and improve well-being for all. They select levers where there is some evidence that such approaches matter substantially, are modifiable, and advance the science and public policy practice. They conclude with specific recommendations and the logistical steps needed to support this transformational shift. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Although widely reported among Latino populations, contradictory evidence exists regarding the generaliz-ability of the immigrant paradox, i.e., that foreign nativity protects against psychiatric disorders. The authors examined whether this paradox applies to all Latino groups by comparing estimates of lifetime psychiatric disorders among immigrant Latino subjects, U.S-born Latino subjects, and non-Latino white subjects. Method: The authors combined and examined data from the National Latino and Asian American Study and the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, two of the largest nationally representative samples of psychiatric information. Results: In the aggregate, risk of most psychiatric disorders was lower for Latino subjects than for non-Latino white subjects. Consistent with the immigrant paradox, U.S.-born Latino subjects reported higher rates for most psychiatric disorders than Latino immigrants. However, rates varied when data were stratified by nativity and disorder and adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic differences across groups. The immigrant paradox consistently held for Mexican subjects across mood, anxiety, and substance disorders, while it was only evident among Cuban and other Latino subjects for substance disorders. No differences were found in lifetime prevalence rates between migrant and U.S.-born Puerto Rican subjects. Conclusions: Caution should be exercised in generalizing the immigrant paradox to all Latino groups and for all psychiatric disorders. Aggregating Latino subjects into a single group masks significant variability in lifetime risk of psychiatric disorders, with some subgroups, such as Puerto Rican subjects, suffering from psychiatric disorders at rates comparable to non-Latino white subjects. Our findings thus suggest that immigrants benefit from a protective context in their country of origin, possibly inoculating them against risk for substance disorders, particularly if they emigrated to the United States as adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]