Faceless


 * Name: Tyler Falconer**
 * Student Number: n7215894**
 * Tutor: Katie Page**

“Today (October 10th) is National Mental Health Day. Mental health issues are taboo – ignored and faceless. Today I am taking the chance to express my thoughts, to bring a face, and a voice, to mental health issues. I suffer from depression, suicidal tendencies, mood dysthymia, paranoia, acute low self-esteem, anger issues, general anxiety and social anxiety disorder. I have been house bound for three years, have attempted suicide more times than I’d like to mention in many feeble pathetic ways.” - Kathryn Jeanes (Digital Artist)

=__TOPIC__ =

Mental Health – Are Government policies sufficient in aiding the mental health of the Australian population and do they provide sufficient access? How does Australia compare internationally?

=__ARTEFACT__ =

 This digitally modified image, along with the opening passage, was presented on an art forum existing to showcase artwork with profound significance. The artist, Kathryn Jeanes, depicts a seemingly ‘faceless’ or unrecognizable individual, with little indication of individuality. Open for much interpretation, this artefact seeks to captivate the audience and encourages a profound provocation of thought.
 * [|Deviant Art] **

=__ PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE __ =

This artefact represents the deliberations and feelings of one individual, whom herself suffers from various different mental illnesses. The photograph stands to suggest that the services and policies employed in Australia are insufficient and are not meeting the needs of the population and are in fact, faceless. This analysis will compare Australian statistics on mental health to various countries around the world. In addition, a critical analysis of Australian policies currently in place will provide evidence of how well they are serving the population. Furthermore, it will investigate the cultural and social impacts of such insufficiencies and demonstrate the necessity for a greater stance, and ownership of responsibility, of the mental health sector in Australia.

__LITERATURE REVIEW__

The World Health Organisation defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which an individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and is able to make a contribution to his or her community” (World Health Organisation, 2011). The most recent data published by the Lancet Global Mental Health Group, indicated that annually 30% of the world’s population suffers from a mental disorder, and of those, only one-third receive treatment. The Australian Bureau of Statistics performed a National Survey for Mental Health and Well-being (2007), reporting that one in five Australians had experienced a mental illness in the previous twelve months. In addition, the survey suggests that mental illness and suicide account for 14.2% of Australia’s total health burden. Despite these alarming figures, only 7.5 percent of the national health budget was spent on mental health (National Mental Health Report, 2010).

The fact that Australia faces such prevalence and financial burden of mental illness is not unique. In order to fully understand the effectiveness of Australia’s mental health deliberations, it is vital to compare the prevalence, and funding of mental health, to other countries. As was previously recognized, one in five persons in Australia have suffered from a mental illness in the previous 12 months (Adrienne Gross, 2009). Of the total health budget, only 7.5 percent was dedicated to mental health. The United States National Institute of Mental Health (2006), record a 12-month prevalence of 26.2% suffering a mental illness. Similar to Australia, the U.S spends approximately 7.5% of their total health budget (Adrienne Gross, 2009) on mental health. In comparison, the Canadian Community Health Survey indicated that mental disorders are prevalent at a rate of one in five (20 percent). The Canadian Government is allocating a mere 4.8% of the total health budget (Adrienne Gross, 2009) on mental health. On the other hand, the United Kingdom spends the greatest quantity of the health budget on mental health, with 12.1% (Adrienne Gross, 2009). Despite spending the most, the prevalence of mental illness is prominent, at a rate on one in four (25%) (The Office for National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity report, 2001).

By comparing the rates of mental illness, and the financial contribution dedicated to improving these rates of several countries, it is clear that expenditure, services and policies are not consistent throughout the world. Canada spends one-third than that of the UK, yet Canada’s prevalence rates are much lower. Australia is on par with Canada in terms of prevalence, yet our superior financial contribution has not indicated a subsequently lower number of sufferers. If Canada can spend that little of its health budget on mental health and still receive equal statistical data, it is clear that Australia has a significant dilemma surrounding the mental health care system. The main provisions of mental health in Australia are made through legislation, government policies, government organisations and non-government organisations. In additions to these, there are voluminous specific programs that target certain demographics and illnesses. However, it is the government policies and standards that will be further explored to identify the issues surrounding Australia’s mental health standards.

The National Mental Health Strategy and the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Action Plan on Mental Health 2006-11 set the service provision agenda over this period, committing all levels of government to focus on improving mental health in Australia (Mental health services Australia, 2011). The National Mental Health Strategy is supported by the Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, and aims to promote mental health of Australian’s. It seeks to do this by reducing the impact of mental disorders on individuals, families and the community, and assuring the rights of people with mental disorders. It is the fourth National Mental Health Plan to date, currently turning its focus to ensuring effective access and treatment to all persons. In addition, it has devised an action plan to target five key aspects of the currently failing mental health system: social inclusion and recovery, prevention and early intervention, service access, quality improvement and innovation, and accountability – measuring and reporting progress. This final statement, measuring and reporting progress, is a significant step towards improving mental health. Currently, there is no benchmark as to where Australia should be sitting in regards to prevalence, treatment or accessibility of services. The artefact presented in this analysis clearly indicates this notion, depicting the faceless nature of mental health.

The COAG National Action Plan on Mental Health 2006-2011 indicates its plan is directed at achieving four chief outcomes. The primary goal is to reduce the prevalence and severity of mental illness in Australia. This action plan was introduced in 2006, finishing in 2011. However, it is seemingly obvious that this distinct initiative has been a failure. In 1997, the ABS conducted the first National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, and indicated a prevalence rate of one in five Australian’s in any given year. In 2007, the ABS repeated the survey, and once again concluded prevalence rates are still currently at 20 percent. Other key initiatives of this Action Plan was to reduce the prevalence of risk factors that contribute to the onset of mental illnesses and increasing access to relevant health care and community services. Over the last decade there has been significant increase in government awareness campaigns on mental illness-promoting behavior. These include drug and alcohol abuse campaigns, recent mental illness awareness and anti-stigma campaigns in 2011. However, despite the importance of early detection in mental illnesses, Annemarie Wright et. al. identified the complete lack of initiatives targeted at young people.

In addition, the National Health Reform Agreement and the National Health Reform Agreement provide additional guidance on government action with specific implications for mental health care. After analyzing the policies and services Australia has in place, it is evident that they are, in fact, comprehensive and provide a broad scope of practice. However, despite having world-class policies, the most significant issue is the lack of access to supporting services. The National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing in 1997 and 2007 indicated that only one in three people with a mental disorder sought professional help for their condition. Burgess et al. reported that Australia’s treatment rates are in the middle of an international group of countries. This is significantly unacceptable, considering Australia’s health care system is considered the most accessible in the world. There is little satisfactory reasoning behind the incompetence of the mental health care system not ensuring readily accessible services and support to all communities.

=__CULTURAL AND SOCIAL ANALYSIS__ =

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The previously vastly stigmatized nature of mental illness in Australia has lead to tentative behaviours when accessing the services available (Amy Watson, Patrick Corrigan, 2009). Psychiatric disorders are the leading causes of morbidity in the community, however most persons with such disorders do not receive care. Addressing unmet needs by increasing access and improving the quality of services is a major goal (Kenneth Wells, Jeanne Miranda, Martha Bruce, Margarita Alegria, Nina Wallerstein, 2004) of the COAG National Action Plan. Despite current efforts of copious comprehensive policies engaging mental health care, the numbers of Australian’s accessing services is significantly undesirable.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Lack of research and empirical data into reasons as to why these trends exist highlight the need for more government action and investigation. Professor Alan Rosen analysed the 2001 World Health Organisation report and identified the main issues to be addressed within Australia’s mental health care. The report concluded Australia has an extensive lack of specialist mental illness care. Currently, there are only 12.1 psychiatrists per 100,000 of the population. This evidence raises queries into whether Australia’s access issues are related to geography, demographics, or a complete lack of personnel servicing the industry. The remaining of this analysis will seek to investigate this aspect, taking into consideration the social and cultural impact of such inadequacies. <span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">As was previously stated, only a derisory one third of persons suffering mental illness in Australia are accessing treatment or services. The Mental Health Foundation published data indicating the greatest numbers of citizens suffering from mental illness are aged between 18-24. Moreover, recent data revealed that the death rate due to suicide for adolescent males tend to rise with increasing remoteness. This extends to the point of remote suicides rates being twice that of rates within capital cities (Boyd, Aisbett, Francis, Kelly, et al., 2006).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">Social geographer, Hester Parr, has conducted recent research into the characteristics of rural communities and how they impact on people with mental illness. He distinguished between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ environments in terms of physical and social proximity. Parr found that those in rural communities were physically distant but socially proximate, in direct contrast to people who live in urban areas. The impact of this so called ‘rural paradox of proximity and distance’ is proving increasingly difficult for the Australia’s mental health provisions. The forefront of such complications includes the low level of specialist support and the clear lack of confidentiality, anonymity and subjective social discrimination in such minute communities.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The main cultural group suffering from lack of access to mental health care in Australia is the Indigenous population. Studies have indicated that the death rate associated with mental illness is three times higher in indigenous Australians than that of the non-indigenous community. (Mental Halth Foundation, 2011). A large proportion of Australia’s mental health services are not designed to incorporate cultural presentations and assessment, or safe hospitalization where process to self-care is recognized (Anthony O’Brien, Julie Boddy & Derrylea Hardy, 2007). The New South Wales (NSW) Department of Health Centre for Menal Health identified key issues for Aboriginal Australians in accessing mainstream mental health services. Most prominently, there is a need for services to be culturally sensitive and holistic. In addition, non-aboriginal workers require training to acknowledge historical factors relevant to social and cultural marginalization and provide a special place of health for indigenous people. The National Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Clearinghouse for indigenous health status claims that very little health information is currently available specifically for the Indigenous community.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The indigenous population is clearly suffering from a lack of not only accessibility issues, but also cultural misunderstanding. Moreover, this is not only unique to the Indigenous population, but also the many culturally and linguistically diverse populations that currently reside in Australia (Mindframe National Media Initiative, 2011). As is evident through this research social analysis, Australia’s lack of access to specialist care and multicultural dimensions of the mental health care system is proving to be a significant health problem.

=<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">__ARTEFACT ANALYSIS/LEARNING REFLECTION__ =

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">After catching a glimpse of my artefact on a completely unrelated art website, it captivatingly provoked a huge sense of personal curiosity as to the meaning and influences behind it. On further exploration, I discovered the plight of the artist and her own battle with mental illness. These curiosities lead me to delve into Australia’s current mental health policies and identify the cause of the deliberations felt by the artist. The idea of ‘putting a face to mental health’ raises the questions into who is actually responsible for the governance, service and quality control of mental health in Australia. Only in 2012 is there to be a National Mental Health Commission introduced. The commission has been set up to provide the Commonwealth with independent advice on the effectiveness of the mental health system in meeting the needs of people with a mental illness, their families and carers. The Commission has also been tasked to producing a National Report Card on Mental Health and Suicide Prevention in 20012. Considering the advancement in Australia’s health care system and level of governments, this Commission is extremely late coming (Mental Health Services Australia, 2011).

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">The idea that a person suffering from multiple mental illnesses felt deprived of recognition and isolated from services, reiterates the lack of dedicated responsibility taken by the Australian government. Through this critical analysis, I have been exposed to many harsh realities faced by thousands of people throughout the world. In today’s society, one so technologically advanced and informed, it is hugely embarrassing to acknowledge that mental health has been ignorantly ignored for many years. It has taken Australia until 2012 to formally identify a Commission dedicated to mental health. This assessment piece will have an influence on the way I review certain aspects of Australian policies, services and government, and will encourage me to analyse the critical aspects of situations, in order to gain a broader perspective before judging.

=__REFERENCES__=

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
 * 1) Jenkins, R. (2008). Mental health policy. //Elseverir International Encyclopedia of Public Health & institute of psychiatry, London, UK.// 393-406. Retrieved from []
 * 1) Mann, T., & Nelson, F. (2011). Opportunities in public policy to support infant and early childhood mental health: The role of psychologists and policymakers. //American Psychologist//, 66(2), 129-139. Retrieved from [|http://web.ebscohost.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/ehost/detail?sid=8d25379e-68a5-466e-bca4-61293764fd55%40sessionmgr111&vid=3&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=pdh&AN=amp-66-2-129]
 * 1) Griffiths, K. (2006). Policies without progress: Two decased of mental health services in Australia. //Health Collection// 89, 19-23. Retrieved from []
 * 1) Meadows, G., Tempier, R., & Vasiliadis, H. (2007). Mental disorders and mental health care in Canada and Australia: comparative epidemiological findings. // Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44 // (1), 63-63-72. Retrieved from []
 * 1) Groves, A., & Whiteford, H. (2009). Policy implication of the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. //Australian and New Zealand Jounral of Psychiatry// 43)7), 644-672. Retrieved from []
 * 1) Boddy, J., Jardy, D., & O’Brien, A. (2007). Culturally specific process measures to improve mental health clinical practice: indigenous focus. //Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry// 41(8), 667-674. Retrieved from [|http://informahealthcare.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/doi/full/10.1080/00048670701449211?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528comparative%2Banalysis%2Bof%2Bmental%2Bhealth%2Bpolicy%252C%2Breforms%2Band%2Bservice%2Bcommissions%2529&searchHistoryKey]
 * 1) Lancet Global Mental Health Group. (2007). Scale up services for mental disorders: a call for action. //Lancet// 370(9594),1241–1252. Retrieved from []
 * 1) Australian Government Department for Health and Ageing. (2006). Nay Disorder among adults. //National Institute of Mental Health.// Retrieved from []
 * 1) Grange, M., Lesage, A., & Vasiliadis, H. (2006). Prevalence of mental illnesses and related service utilization in Canada: An analysis of the Canadian Community Health Survey. Retrieved from []
 * 1) 10.Mental Health Foundation. (2011). Mental Health Statistics: UK and Worldwide. //Mental Health Foundation.// Retrieved from []
 * 1) 11.Gross, A. (2009). ‘Who’s health? Mental Illness in Australia compared to around the world. //Mental Health Foundation Act 2009.//
 * 1) 12.Jorn, A., McGory, A., Merideth, P., Pennel, K., & Wright, A. (2006). Development and evaluation of a youth mental health community awareness campaign – The compass strategy. //Journal Biomedical Science,// 6, 215. Retrieved from []
 * 1) 13.Alegria, M., Bruce, M., Miranda, J., Wallerstein, N., & Wells, K. (2004). Bridging community intervention and mental health services research. //American Journal of Psychiatry 161,// 955-963. Retrieved from []
 * 1) 14.Corrigan, W., & Watson, A. (2009). The impact of stigma on service access and participation. //University of Chicago Center fro Psychiatric Rehabilitation.// Retrieved from []
 * 1) 15.Mindframe National Media Initiative. (2011). Mental illness facts. //Mindframe National Media Initiative.// Retrieved from []

__Reflective Comments:__
'It's bad enough that people are dying of AIDS, but no one should die of ignorance' - Elizabeth Taylor (actress) <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Are you still hungry? The consequences of media pressure on Generation Y. <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"> <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">This analysis highlighted the relatively underestimated prevalence of eating disorders in today's society perfectly! Along with yourself, I am a female of Gen Y, and I constantly feel the pressure and need to be thin. The media portrayal of beauty seemingly sets the standards for the youth of today, without any question at all. The importance of campaigns, such as your artefact, are hugely invaluable. Eating disorders do not get the recognition as a severe mental illness as it rightly deserves. The media have a lot to answer for in terms of the impact it is having on many young lives, however, this is far from even being considered. You did a really great job with this, it was extremely interesting and knowledgeable. ||
 * < <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Firstly, your title, along with your artefact, grabbed my attention and encouraged me to keep reading. Like you, I had no idea that HIV rates were rising in Australia! That is quite hard to believe considering the technological advances and information at hand in today's society. I think your research and knowledge was excellent and I could tell you were passionate about the topic. HIV as a current public health issue is obviously greatly understated, otherwise much of society (Gen Y especially) would be greatly aware of its prevalence and serious nature. I think you highlighted the importance of targeting Gen Y with advertising through different mediums perfectly. Clearly, the message surrounding HIV has been lost in translation somewhere along the line, and needs to be reinstated with the younger generations in mind. Great work :) <span style="display: block; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">