Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38285082›Full record

ArticleAdministration and policy in mental health2024

Addressing Inequities in Access to Mental Healthcare: A Policy Analysis of Community Mental Health Systems Serving Minoritized Populations in North Carolina.

Sasha Zabelski, Mara Hollander, Apryl Alexander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Administration and policy in mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sasha ZabelskiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA. azabelsk@uncc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2159-9935
Mara HollanderDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA.
Apryl AlexanderDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9666-9598

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Racial and ethnic minoritized uninsured populations in the United States face the greatest barriers to accessing mental healthcare. Historically, systems of care in the U.S. were set up using inadequate evidence at the federal, state, and local levels, driving inequities in access to quality care for minoritized populations. These inequities are most evident in community-based mental health services, which are partially or fully funded by federal programs and predominantly serve historically minoritized groups. In this descriptive policy analysis, we outline the history of federal legislative policies that have dictated community mental health systems and how these policies were implemented in North Carolina, which has a high percentage of uninsured communities of color. Several gaps between laws passed in the last 60 years and research on improving inequities in access to mental health services are discussed. Recommendations to expand/fix these policies include funding accurate data collection and implementation methods such as electronic health record (EHR) systems to ensure policies are informed by extensive data, implementation of evidence-informed and culturally sensitive interventions, and prioritizing preventative services that move past traditional models of mental healthcare.

Indexed as

Community Mental Health ServicesHealthcare DisparitiesHealth Services AccessibilityEthnicityHealth PolicyHumansMedically UninsuredNorth CarolinaPolicy MakingUnited StatesHealth care SystemsMental HealthMental Health ServicesPolicy

Identifiers

PMID38285082
PMCPMC11196298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.