Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42287632›Full record

ArticleThe journal of mental health policy and economics2026

Geographic Access to Mental Health Facilities for People with Disabilities.

Annetta R Zhou, Nicolas De Mello, Nicole Maestas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of mental health policy and economics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Annetta R ZhouRAND, Boston, MA, USA, E-mail: azhou@rand.org.
Nicolas De Mello
Nicole Maestas

Funding

Mental Health Care for Disadvantaged Populations: The Role of the Provider LandscapeR01MH135884 · NIMH · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NICOLE A MAESTAS · 2024 to 2026
$2.1M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH135884
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need for mental health care is growing in the U.S., yet care is elusive for many patients. Among people experiencing mental illnesses, those with disabilities often face additional obstacles when seeking care. Therefore, proximity to mental health services is especially important for this population. Although regional differences in travel distances to mental health facilities have been documented, their implications for individuals with disabilities are not well understood. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study compares geographic proximity to mental health facilities between individuals with and without disabilities. We also compare geographic access to facilities across counties with different characteristics, including having high versus low shares of residents with disabilities.

methodsThis study links American Community Survey population data with mental health facility locations from the Mental health and Addiction Treatment Tracking Repository (MATTR) to estimate the number of people living within a 30-minute drive of a facility. We calculate these estimates overall, and by population and county characteristics. We also estimate a multivariate county-level regression in which the population share in each county that lives within a 30-minute drive of a mental health facility is regressed on county characteristics.

resultsMost of the U.S. population (96.2% of individuals without disabilities and 94.8% of individuals with disabilities) lives within a 30-minute drive of one or more mental health facilities. However, geographic access to mental health facilities is low in rural counties, where more than one quarter of the population does not have access to a mental health facility within a 30-minute drive. Compared to non-rural counties, rural counties have a higher concentration of individuals with disabilities and higher rates of clinician-diagnosed depression or self-reported severe depression. After controlling for rurality, state, population, racial composition, income, and depression prevalence at the county level, the share of a county's population within a 30-minute drive of a facility remains negatively correlated with the share of the county's population with disabilities. DISCUSSION: Overall geographic access to mental health facilities is high in the U.S., and there is only a small disparity between individuals with and without disabilities. However, geographic access to mental health facilities is lacking in rural communities. This pattern is especially costly for people with disabilities because of their relatively high concentration in these areas. People with disabilities likely face additional barriers to accessing care compared with people without disabilities living in the same location. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: The lack of nearby mental health facilities remains a significant access barrier to mental health care for people in rural communities. These access gaps are of concern because rural communities are especially vulnerable, as evidenced by a high proportion of individuals with disabilities and a higher prevalence of depression. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY FORMULATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH: Measuring disparities in geographic access to mental health facilities by disability status may yield different results depending on whether comparisons are performed at the individual or the community level. Community-level and individual-level disparities may require different policy solutions.

Indexed as

Health Services AccessibilityMental DisordersMental Health ServicesPersons with DisabilitiesHumansRural PopulationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42287632
PMCPMC13660771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.