ArticleIndian journal of psychological medicine2025
Global Disparities in Mental Health Systems: A Comparative Cross-sectional Study of Ten Countries with Different Income Levels.
Article in Indian journal of psychological medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-specific depression patterns among hemodialysis patients in Yemen: implications for mental-health screening in resource-limited settings.Renal failure · 2026Article
- Article
- Avatar-Mediated Telepsychotherapy in a Metaverse-Informed Virtual Environment: Qualitative Study of User Experiences and Design Requirements.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Emerging Neurobiological and Therapeutic Insights into Schizophrenia: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Beyond the clinic: The role of the psychiatrist in practicing pragmatic solidarity.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health disorders are a common cause of disability worldwide. Disparities exist between the mental health frameworks of high-income countries (HICs), upper middle-income countries (UMICs), and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). LMICs have shortages in infrastructure, financial resources, laws, and workforce, resulting in significant gaps in treatment. This study compares mental health system indicators across 10 nations to examine how economic and policy-level factors influence service access and population-level burden. Methods: A cross-sectional comparative analysis was conducted using publicly available secondary data. Sources included the WHO Mental Health Atlas, World Bank Open Data, Global Burden of Disease (GBD), and national mental health policies. Five HICs (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Japan) and five UMICs plus LMICs (Brazil, South Africa, India, Kenya, Nigeria) were selected. Mental health budget allocation, treatment gap, psychiatrist density, psychiatric bed availability, primary care integration, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were assessed. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations were applied. Results: HICs allocated 6.1%-11.3% of health budgets to mental health, had lower treatment gaps (19%-32%) and higher psychiatrist densities (11.8-14.6/100,000). On the contrary, LMICs had a budget share below 1%, treatment gaps >75%, and psychiatrist densities <1. A strong positive correlation was observed between GDP per capita and the prevalence of psychiatrists (r = 0.77, Conclusions: Economic capacity and political commitment have a substantial impact on mental health systems. Strengthening the workforce, integrating services, and reforming legislation are essential to closing the gaps in treatment and achieving equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.