One Consumer’s Observations of the Mental Health Care System in America

The Mental health system is a unique culture. Psychiatry itself is, unlike any other medical specialty. Mental health is an enclosed system. That means it is a world within a world. The doctors, therapists, patients, and support workers play roles. It’s a reciprocal environment. Each player in the system allows the other person the opportunity to act out his or her role. For example, the Psychiatrist gives you a diagnosis that has no basis (Yes this does happen from time to time). You, the patient, having complete faith in the powers of the behavioral health system, accept this diagnosis as the gospel truth. In time, you begin to notice certain behaviors and thoughts that you believe may be a sign of your supposed illness. You return to your doctor and report these symptoms. Your Psychiatrist agrees with your observations and writes them down in your medical record. He also inserts his authoritative comments to support his opinion. Therefore, both parties in the relationship are mutually validated in their roles.

When one has been playing the patient role for so long, a person begins to identify himself or herself as a -psych patient.- That-s who you are. This is the term that defines your very existence. You belong to the mental health system. Soon enough you find that every activity you engage yourself in is related to your disorder and the medication your doctor prescribed to suppress it. It’s a sad commentary indeed. It’s sadder still for the person who needlessly struggles against an undefinable defect in his or her character as if the diagnosis were the irrefutable truth. I acknowledge the fact that the unsettling scenario I am painting here is not true for every psychiatric patient.

At some point, the psychiatric patient discovers the benefits of being labeled mentally ill. There are mental health workers, such as case managers who assist the -consumer- in obtaining a free living allowance from the Federal government in the form of Social Security Disability Income or Supplemental Security Income in whatever minimal amount it may be. I will add for comfort that social security disability benefits are reported (by the government) to run dry in 2016. A consumer is often entitled to free housing, health care, food assistance, and much more. The mentally ill person may even have the right under certain disability laws to bring a pit-bull into a no-pet residential community. Technically speaking, you could even take it on a commercial airliner. The reason is simply because your therapist deemed it necessary that you have an emotional support animal (oops was that a secret?). Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure there are people who require a companion animal for their emotional health. I’m not trying to be disrespectful to those who are struggling. What I’m saying that there are incentives built into the system for many people to accept their diagnosis and play out their role.

There are case managers and outreach workers that will go to court with you, and advocate on your behalf before the judge when you run afoul of the law. They will help the mentally ill with all of their personal affairs. What a bargain! Run out and tell all of your friends about it. Let the government take care of you. It makes being a psychiatric patient seem so much more attractive. Why wouldn’t anyone want a Psychiatrist label to them disabled? Again, I’m being sarcastic to make my point that people, who are improperly labeled with a DSM V diagnosis, run the risk of becoming dependent on the mental health system for their needs.

This kind of social welfare encourages people to give up their ambition and motivation. It instills the idea that living a marginal existence is sufficient. I, for one, believe in the greatness people can achieve for themselves and the world by applying themselves.

Remember this. Once you get into the mental health system your chances of getting out are slim. There are a number of reasons for this. Primarily because the Psychiatrist or Psychologist has you convinced that you have a serious medical problem, which you can’t handle yourself. We all know that’s ridiculous. Many people manage their depression and anxiety remarkably well without the use of psychiatric medications. If Ativan calms your nerves and helps you function, then that’s great. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of people become addicted to sedatives. These drugs are unsafe. I wouldn’t put your faith in the safety of the anti-depressants either. I think the pharmaceutical giants are quick to point that out as a result of the numerous class action lawsuits filed against them.

Some blame can be placed on the pharmaceutical companies for this unnatural drug dependence. As I was writing this article, I surfed NAMI’s website (National Alliance for Mental Illness) and noticed -In Our Own Voice,- a public education program, is funded by a grant from Eli Lily. This is the pharmaceutical giant that manufactures psychiatric drugs like Prozac, Zyprexa, and Cymbalta. I gather (without too much mental effort) that Eli Lily’s generosity is a publicity campaign to make them look like one of the good guys in the mental field, and as a result, boost sales. As I surfaced the Internet, I found that NAMI has been receiving their fair share of criticism for their questionable association with pharmaceutical companies. I will not say NAMI is immoral or unethical. That would be too easy. If Ely Lily offered me thousands of dollars, I would have to seriously consider taking it. Sometimes the decision to cross the line depends on one’s real life needs. Other times it just has to do with making a buck. There is no denying that this kind of corporate misconduct adversely affects the mental health system and exacerbates the suffering of its consumers. Again, I know some people require the assistance of the pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatric community. The screening process for prescribing these medications is a big part of the problem. That’s because there is no adequate process in place for dispensing these potentially dangerous drugs.

Society itself contributes to this dysfunctional culture. The general attitude of the public is -As long as they are not bothering us you can do what you please with them.- This gives the mental health providers even more authority to do as they please. And so the psychiatric patient is stripped of his or her rights. As I see it, a psychiatric patient is a human being without respect or dignity. You can call my words dramatic if you like.

It may seem as I am playing the blame game and the taking on the victim role. Allow to clarify the role of the patient in the mental health system (those like myself). I will be the first to admit that the informed psychiatric patient is the one who is primarily responsible for his or her unfortunate situation. We have to accept our role in the system. No one can twist your arm behind your back, and say, -Go see a therapist about your anxiety.- At least that’s true in most cases. When you reflect on why you did it, you will say, -It seemed like a good idea at the time.-

The worst thing a mentally ill person could ever do, is telling someone about his or her condition. As soon as you do, the other person looks at you differently. An automatic flash goes off in the person’s brain, -Oh God. Here we go. His illness is acting up.- This attitude is especially noticeable in the face of a mental health professional, your family members, and closest friends. It’s a universal reaction. From the moment you reveal your secret, everything you do will be blamed on your illness. The ways in which you express yourself as a normal human being will be measured against your supposed disorder. If you are frustrated about something, the people in your life will conclude, -His meds aren’t working.- When people think you cannot hear them, they will gossip amongst themselves, -Oh he’s a psych patient. That’s why he looks agitated. That’s part of his illness.- This attitude is quite common. It comes from a lack of understanding. How could a person know, unless he or she has personally experienced it.

If you should attempt to verbalize your rights as a human being, the mental health provider will proceed to have you committed to a psychiatric hospital against your will. The patient can be held for an indefinite period of time until a clinician decides the person has come to his or her senses. The mental health professionals can essentially do whatever they want with you because no one is going to speak out against them. In Massachusetts, psychiatric patients must retain a specially trained lawyer to represent them before a mental health court in order to be released. This is where we are in 2013. I’ll bet most of you reading this article didn’t know how our behavioral health system works. We are still in the dark ages.

The only time the state of the mental health system is brought to light is when a patient commits suicide or kills someone. Then there is a public uproar and the Psychiatrist or therapist are blamed or in some cases sued. In their defense, no doctor can control the behavior of their patient in society. That is not their job as I see it. The mental health professional cannot be held responsible for the actions of their patients, unless they were grossly negligent in some way. We are free and sovereign human beings. In the United States, people are generally allowed to operate freely without undue interference from others. The American attitude is -No one has the right to tell me what to do.- It’s a slightly different story if the patient states that he or she intends to commit suicide or kill someone. Then the call to duty is activated. Mental illness is a complicated matter. This article presents an insider’s view of the system. My depiction of the mental health system in this paper is not necessarily representative of other people’s experiences. This observation is based on my own experience and perspective.

Functionality Of Hardy Rubber Tree – Drink Eucommia For Physical And Mental Health

The hardy rubber tree is an unusual plant which was first found in central China. It can reach as high as 60 feet in the warmer climates of the world. The technical name for the tree is called Eucommia ulmoides, and the tree contains latex or gum. Eventually, the bark of the tree was used for medicinal or health purposes. The extract is considered to be of balanced and acrid consistency and has been historically used in an oriental tea or Chinese tea blend. Traditionally, anywhere from 7 to 10 % of a medicinal tea will consist of extract from Eucommia ulmoides.

The hardy rubber tree must be at least 10 years old before material is suitable for harvesting. The trunk bark is typically gathered between April and June in three large sections. During these spring months, the potency of the medicinal elements is at their highest. To process the extract, the bark is folded in on itself, with the inner surfaces touching each other. The bark is then left for several days until the inner areas turn black. The next step is to allow the bark to fully dry via sunlight exposure after the outer layers of bark are removed. During growing months, the tree’s living bark is cracked regularly to expose and collect white latex threads.

Eucommia serves to treat mainly ailments when prepared in oriental tea or Chinese tea. It is used as a detoxification element and promotes kidney cleansing, colon cleansing and urinary tract health. Reduction of genital itching is also a known benefit of the hardy rubber tree plant. As an overall detoxification agent, Eucommia will assist with expelling toxins from the blood. It will also aid in boosting the overall immune system, effectively helping the body to fight off disease and illness.

Medicinally, Eucommia is used to treat lower back pain and knee pain. Deficiencies in strength of the lower body can be attributed to kidney and liver health. Eucommia cleanses the liver and kidney which in turn strengthens the lower body. The oriental tea or Chinese tea made from the hardy rubber tree plant will also promote joint lubrication and functionality as well as bone strength and health. Eucommia is said to have age defying properties when used regularly and used to make its drinkers light of mind and light of age. Finally, drinking teas made with Eucommia can promote weight loss and long-term weight management.

Cross Country Running-six Mental Tips

Long distance running can often be grueling and severely uncomfortable. How is it that some people love it while others despise the very thought of it? Experienced long-distance runners use the following mental tips and practices to make running fun.
First, you need to let your imagination wonder. I know, running requires concentration, but it can be eased through the right thought process. Never think about what your body is doing, or the fact that your head keeps bobbing up and down. Focusing on your aches and pains only makes them worse. Do you remember those days in school when class seem to drag on for an eternity? The reason it took so long was probably because you were watching the clock. If you can could have got your mind off of how much you were dying to get out of there, time would have passed more quickly. Time flies when you are distracted.
Second, concentrate on overcoming one runner at a time. In a sense, this statement contradicts my first. While it is good to keep your mind distracted, you need to keep a small, narrow section of your brain focused on the race. This is why mental work for long-distance running is so hard, you need to be distracted and concentrated simultaneously. Look to the runner ahead of you, and start lengthening your strides to the point that you are gradually shortening the distance between the two of you. Pass him, and look to the next runner.
Third, avoid all unnecessary movements. These include wiping away sweat, fixing your running uniform, slapping a bug on your arm, clearing your eyes, etc. If it doesn’t make you run faster, and you don’t have to do it, then by all means do not do it!
Fourth, be mindful of your stride length. As the race goes on, your strides will start to get gradually slower. Return yourself to a normal pace whenever you notice this. However, do not overwork yourself or you will hit a hard wall before the race ends.
Fifth, enjoy the scenery! This goes back to my first tip, you need to take your mind off of how much you want to stop. So look around, count the flowers, and smile at the birds. Some coaches recommend talking to yourself, but I do not because it disrupts your breathing patterns.
Sixth, getting mad or angry can actually motivate you to run harder. Imagine someone running in front of you, some one you don’t particularly like. Now imagine they turn around and start laughing at you because you are slow and will never finish the race. While this may seem a bit bizarre, anger can be a great incentive if you know how to use it.

Numerology’s Temperament Chart And Mental Number; How You Solve Problems Of The Mind

Each of us reacts to situations differently, depending on his own temperament. Numerology can analyze your name and predict how you will respond to problems based on four basic categories: Mental, Physical, Emotional, and Intuitive. And to see how you react to problems involving thought, we need to calculate your Mental number.

Your Mental number is how you approach problems that mainly require thought; decisions based on what you know. All problems have elements each category, but mental problems tend to have very little cross-over into the other categories.

===> Calculating your Mental Number

Your Mental number is determined by counting the number of mental letters in your use name, and then reducing the sum to a single digit using fadic addition. In Numerology, the following letters are classified as Mental letters: (A, G, H, J, L, N, and P).

As an example, actor Johnny Depp has a Mental temperament number of (6) as shown below.

Johnny Depp = (J, H, N, N) + (P, P) = (4 + 2) = (6)

The following is a list of Mental numbers, and how you approach mental problems with each one.

===> Mental (1)

This value shows that you are an original thinker, able to find new and exciting ways of doing things. You tend to be impatient and will dominate discussions concerning your thoughts and ideas.

===> Mental (2)

This value shows that you enjoy knowledge for its own sake and are good at detailed work. Collaboration is easy for you; because you see both sides of every question.

===> Mental (3)

This value shows that you bring your creativity to every mental problem. You need constant stimulation to avoid becoming bored. You see the funny side of life, and tend to be something of a practical joker.

===> Mental (4)

This value shows that you approach problems with logic and reason. You like solid practical ideas, and mistrust the unusual or the untried solution. Your plans are always workable and well thought out.

===> Mental (5)

This value shows that you have a quick and agile mind. You love new plans and ideas. You have many interests and are constantly jumping back and forth between them. You are a good conversationalist.

===> Mental (6)

This value shows that you think responsibly, and are a creative problem solver. You always see the difficulties of others in your thought processes.

===> Mental (7)

This value shows that you have good analytical skills if people will leave you alone to use them. You need solitude and hate it when others interfere in your decision making process. You see a great deal but tend to keep your observations to yourself.

===> Mental (8)

This value shows that you have a powerful and efficient business sense. You are driven to succeed and are a strong, tough champion for your thoughts and ideas. Guard against the tendency to be greedy about material things.

===> Mental (9)

This value shows that you have a broad vision of what needs to be done. You are not a detail person. You are idealistic and considerate of your fellow man when making plans.

Conceptualizing Mental Health Care Utilization Using The Health Belief Model

Article Text

The process of change in psychotherapy, regardless of the clinician’s orientation, length of treatment, or outcome measure, begins with this: The client must attend a first session. However, several national surveys in the past decade converge on a rate of approximately one-third of individuals diagnosed with a mental disorder receiving any professional treatment (Alegra, Bijl, Lin, Walters, & Kessler, 2000; Andrews, Issakidis, & Carter, 2001; Wang et al., 2005). A review of the literature surrounding mental health utilization reveals evidence that a complex array of psychological, social, and demographic factors influence a distressed individual’s arrival to a mental health clinic. Thus, developing effective strategies for decreasing barriers to care is a critical task for clinicians and administrators. The

aim of this article was to review current research focused on appropriate utilization of mental health services and to use the Health Belief Model (HBM; Becker, 1974) as a parsimonious model for conceptualizing the current knowledge base, as well as predicting and suggesting future research and implementation strategies in the field.

First, it is important to address whether increasing mental health service use is an appropriate public health goal. A World Health Organization (WHO) survey comparing individuals with severe, moderate, or mild disorder symptoms indicated that approximately half of those surveyed went untreated in the past year (WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium, 2004), with even less treatment among those with more severe symptoms. Many costs are associated with untreated mental disorders, including overuse of primary care services for a variety of reasons (Katon, 2003; White et al., 2008), lost productivity for businesses and lost wages for employees (Adler et al., 2006), as well as the negative impact of mental disorders on medical disorders, such as diabetes and hypertension (Katon & Ciechanowski, 2002). These com

bined expenses have been calculated to rival some of the most common and costly physical disorders, such as heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes (Druss, Rosenheck, & Sledge, 2000; Katon et al., 2008).

The consequences of providing additional services to address unmet need may vary by the cost-effectiveness of treatment, availability of providers, and the interaction of mental health symptoms with other illnesses. Medical cost offset and cost-effectiveness research address these questions (for further review, see Blount et al., 2007; Hunsley, 2003). Medical cost offset refers to the estimation of cost savings produced by reduced use of services for primary care as a result of providing psychological services. Reduced medical expenses could occur for several reasons: increased adherence to lifestyle recommendation changes such as diet, exercise, smoking, or taking medications; improved psychological and physical health; and reduction in unnecessary medical visits which serve a secondary purpose (e.g

., making appointments to fill social needs; Hunsley, 2003). In comparison with the indirect costs to society, the individual, and the health care system, costs for providing mental health treatment are quite low (Blount et al., 2007).

However, debate continues regarding how to facilitate mental health care utilization. Identification of mental health need through primary care screening for depression is one research area that highlights the complexity of this issue. Palmer and Coyne (2003) point out several important issues in developing a strategy for addressing this goal: First, several studies suggest that identification of depression in primary care is not enough, as outcomes for depression are similar in primary care patients who have detected depression and those who have not (e.g., Coyne, Klinkman, Gallo, & Schwenk, 1997; Williams et al., 1999). This is supported by research indicating a large gap between the number of individuals who are identified through screening and referred to care, and those who actually receive care (Flynn, O’Mahen, Massey, & Marcus, 2006). Second, it is critical to evaluate attempts to increase utilization, rather than to assume they will be successful, cost-effective, and targeting the appropriate individuals. Therefore, a theoretical framework that addresses both psychological and practical factors associated with treatment utilization will be a beneficial addition to this literature.

Little systematic research has been conducted on the specific topic of psychological factors related to seeking mental health services. However, extensive work has been conducted within two broad, related areas of research: help-seeking behavior and health psychology. Many models have been proposed to explain help-seeking and health-protecting behaviors, none of which has been accepted as wholly superior to the rest. The HBM (Becker, 1974; Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1966) is one of several commonly used social-cognitive theories of health behavior. This model will be reviewed, followed by a brief discussion of several other models. A discussion of the strengths of the HBM and its applicability to mental health treatment utilization research will follow.
Health Belief Model
The HBM (Rosenstock, 1966, 1974), based in a socio-cognitive perspective, was originally developed in the 1950s by social psychologists to explain the failure of some individuals to use preventative health behaviors for early detection of diseases, patient response to symptoms, and medical compliance (Janz & Becker, 1984 ; Kirscht, 1972; Rosenstock, 1974). The theory hypothesizes that people are likely to engage in a given health-related behavior to the extent that they (a) perceive that they could contract the illness or be susceptible to the problem (perceived susceptibility); (b) believe that the problem has serious consequences or will interfere with their daily functioning (perceived severity); (c) believe that the intervention or preventative action will be effective in reducing symptoms (perceived benefits); and (d) perceive few barriers to taking action (perceived barriers). All four variables are thought to be influenced by demographic variables such as race, age, and socioeconomic status. A fifth original factor, cues to action, is frequently neglected in studies of the HBM, but nevertheless provides an important social factor related to mental health care utilization. Cues to action are incidents serving as a reminder of the severity or threat of an illness. These may include personal experiences of symptoms, such as noticing the changing shape of a mole that triggers an individual to consider his or her risk of skin cancer, or external cues, such as a conversation initiated by a physician about smoking cessation. In addition, Rosenstock, Strecher, and Becker (1988) added components of social cognitive theory (Ba ndura, 1977a, 1977b) to the HBM. They proposed that one’s expectation about the ability to influence outcomes (self-efficacy) is an important component in understanding health behavior outcomes. Thus, believing one is capable of quitting smoking (efficacy expectation) is as crucial in determining whether the person will actually quit as knowing the individual’s perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers.

Other health care utilization theories

Other models for health care utilization have been proposed and used as a guide for research. In general, these theories pull from a number of learning theories (e.g., Bandura, 1977a, 1977b; Lewin, 1936; Watson, 1925). Two such models, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) and the Self-Regulation Model (SRM; Leventhal, Nerenz, & Steele, 1984), share many commonalities with the HBM. Ajzen’s TPB proposes that intentions to engage in a behavior predict an individual’s likelihood of actually engaging in the given behavior. Ajzen hypothesizes that intentions are influenced by attitudes toward the usefulness of engaging in a behavior, perceived expectations of important others such as family or friends, and perceived ability to engage in the behavior if desired (Ajzen, 1991). This theory has been applied to a variety of health behaviors and has receiv

ed support for its utility in predicting health behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Armitage & Conner, 2001; Godin & Kok, 1996). However, its relevance in predicting mental health care utilization has received relatively little attention (for two exceptions, see Angermeyer, Matschinger, & Riedel-Heller, 1999; Skogstad, Deane, & Spicer, 2006). Similarly, the SRM (Leventhal et al., 1984) focuses on an individual’s personal representation of his or her illness as a predictor of mental health treatment use. The SRM proposes that individuals’ representation of their illness is comprised of how the individual labels the symptoms he or she is experiencing, the perceived consequences and causes of the symptoms for the individual, the expected time in which the individual would expect to be relieved of symptoms, and the perceived control or cure of the illness (Lau & Hartman, 1983).

The HBM, TPB, and SRM are well-estab

lished socio-cognitive models with similar strengths and weaknesses. The models assume a rational decision-making process in determining behavior, which has been criticized for not addressing the emotional components of some health behaviors, such as using condoms or seeking psychotherapy (Sheeran & Abraham, 1994). There is substantial overlap in the constructs of these three models. For example, an individual’s perception of the normative beliefs of others can be seen more generally as a benefit of treatment (e.g., if I seek treatment my friends will support my decision) or as a barrier (e.g., my family will think I am crazy if they know I am seeking professional help). The SRM lacks a full description of the benefit and barrier aspects of decision making identified in the HBM. However, the illness perceptions about timeline, identity, and consequences do provide a more complete conceptualization of aspects of perceived severity, and in this way the SRM can inform the HBM with these factors.

Andersen’s Sociobehavioral Model (Andersen, 1995) and Pescosolido’s Network Episode Model (Pescosolido, 1992; Pescosolido, Brooks Gardner, & Lubell, 1998) emphasize the role of the health care and social network system in influencing patterns of health care use, while Cramer’s (1999) Help Seeking Model highlights the role of self-concealment and social support in decisions to seek counseling. In particular, the Network Episode Model hypothesizes that clear, independent choice is only one of seve

ral ways that clients enter treatment, along with coercion and passive, indirect pathways to care. According to Cramer’s model, individuals who habitually conceal personally distressing information tend to have lower social support, higher personal distress, and more negative attitudes toward seeking psychological help. Thus, according to this model, self-concealment creates high distress, which pushes an individual toward seeking treatment, but also creates negative attitudes toward treatment, pushing an individual away from treatment. The HBM includes system-level benefits and barriers to utilization, but these three models more fully emphasize the social-emotional context of decision making.
Critiques and limitations of the HBM

The HBM has received some criticism regarding its utility for predicting health behaviors. Ogden (2003), in a review of articles from 1997 to 2001 using social cognition models, questions whether the theory is disconfirmable. She found that two-thirds of the studies reviewed found one or more variables within the model to b

e insignificant, and explained variance accounted for by the model ranged from 1% to 65% when predicting actual behavior. Yet, Ogden writes, rather than rejecting the model, the majority of authors offer alternative explanations for their weak findings and claim that the theory is supported. While authors’ conclusions about their findings may be overstated in many cases, some explanations of insignificant findings are valid limitations of the model. For example, some (e.g., Castle, Skinner, & Hampson, 1999) point out that construct operationalization could be improved for the particular health behavior being studied. However, insignificant results should not be explained away without considering alternative models as well. Certainly, the HBM has received strong support in predicting some health behaviors (Aiken, West, Woodward, & Reno, 1994; Gillibrand & Stevenson, 2006), but questions remain as to its ability to predict all preventative health situations. The usefulnes

s of the HBM in predicting mental health utilization has not adequately been tested to our knowledge.

The HBM may be limited further by its ability to predict more long-term health-related behaviors. For example, from an early review of preventive health behavior models including the HBM by Kirscht (1983), we can anticipate that the factors associated with initiating treatment, as discussed here, may differ from the factors that predict mental health treatment adherence and engagement. Thus, these outcomesattending one therapy appointment versus completing a full course of psychotherapy treatmentshould be clearly distinguished from each other.
Strengths of the HBM

Researchers have not explicitly investigated mental health utilization patterns using the HBM framework; however, much of the

existing literature can be conceptualized as dimensions of severity, benefits, and barriers, indicating that the model may be a useful framework for guiding research in this area. For example, cultural researchers often examine barriers to treatment and perceived severity of symptoms and benefits of treatment in various ethnic populations (e.g., Constantine, Myers, Kindaichi, & Moore, 2004; Zhang, Snowden, & Sue, 1998). In general, the focus of these studies has been to examine cultural differences in beliefs about symptom causes (Chadda, Agarwal, Singh, & Raheja, 2001), changing perceptions of mental health stigma among various ethnic groups (Schnittker, Freese, & Powell, 2000), and cultural mistrust or perceived cultural insensitivity of mental health providers as a barrier to effective treatment (Poston, Craine, & Atkinson, 1991). These studies lay the groundwork for using the HBM as a framework for understanding mental health care utilization for all populations.
Parsimonious and Clear

The model’s use of benefits and barriers opposing each other provides a dynamic representation of the decision-making process. In this “common sense” presentation, the impact of each positive aspect is considered in the context of the

negative aspects. The model in this way provides a parsimonious explanation of a variety of constructs within one clear framework.
Useful and Applicable

One strength of focusing on attitudes and perceptions related to treatment seeking is the clinical utility of such models. By identifying attitudes that may inhibit appropriate help seeking, psychologists can then use research findings to develop interventions for addressing maladaptive attitudes or inaccurate beliefs about mental health and its treatment. Therefore, socio-cognitive theory provides a useful focus for research that ultimately may result in programmatic changes to benefit clients. Once developed, perception-change interventions can be evaluated through changes in observed treatment utilization.

Within the HBM framework, three general approaches can be used to increase appropriate utilization: increasing perceptions of individual susceptibility to illness and severity of symptoms, decreasing the psychological or physical barriers to treatment, or increasing the perceived benefits of treatment. The following discussion will highlight how each perception can be increased or decreased, and the implic

ations for such intensification of the perceptions. Examples of intervention strategies that can serve as individual or system-level “cues to action” will be reviewed within each domain of the model. In addition, where appropriate, the discussions will highlight how sociodemographic factors such as age, sex, and ethnicity impact the perceived threat from the disorder and the expectations for the benefits of therapy. The model we discuss assumes that the individual seeking therapy is autonomous in this decision making. That is, it is not directly applicable to those who are required to seek therapy by the judicial system, a spouse, or their place of employment, nor does it address children’s mental health care utilization. We will address some of these issues briefly later in our discussion.

Figure 1 is a visual representation of the model we propose for conceptualizing mental health care utilization using the HBM as a framework. The studies reviewed in each section below were designed primarily without use of the HBM framework. However, the model is a useful heuristic tool to organize and draw in research from a variety of disciplinesmarketing, public health, psychology, medicine, etc.

Sociodemographic variables in the HBM
Several demographic variables consistently predict utilization of mental health services. Despite similar levels of distress, some groups are less likely to seek professional treatment than others, creating a gap between need and actual use of outpatient mental health services. Groups identified as consistently underutilizing services include men, adults aged 65 and older, and ethnic minority groups in the United States (Wang et al., 2005). Within the HBM framework, these demographic variables are hypothesized to influence clients’ perceptions of severity, benefits, and barriers to seeking professional mental health services. Studies exploring the relationship between demographic variables and HBM constructs will be highlighted throughout this article.
Systems approaches to addressing perceived susceptibility and severity

According to the HBM, individuals vary in how vulnerable they believe they are to contracting a disorder (susceptibility). Once diagnosed with the disorder, this dimension of the HBM has been reformulated to include acceptance of the diagnosis (Becker & Maiman, 1980). In addition, increasing an individual’s perception of the severity of his or her symptoms increases the likelihood that he or she will seek treatment. In relation to mental health, perceived susceptibility goes hand in hand with perceived severity (i.e., Do I have the disorder and how bad is it?), and so they will be discussed together. In health-related decisions, the majority of consumers are dependent upon the expertise and referral of the medical professional, usually the trusted general practitioner (Lipscomb, Root, & Shelley, 2004; Thompson, Hunt, & Issakidis, 2004). Unlike decisions about the need for a new vehicle or a firmer mattress, determining whether or not feelings of sadness should be interpreted as normal emotional fluctuation or as indicators of depression is a decision often left to an expert in the area of mental health or a primary care physician. This places a great responsibility on practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health service providers when discussing the severity of a client’s symptoms and options for treatment.
Ethical Considerations in Increasing Perceived Severity and Symptom Awareness

The American Psychological Association (APA) provides ethical guidelines for clinicians about how to inform the public appropriately about mental health services. According to the 2002 Ethics Code (American Psychological Association, 2002), psychologists are prohibited from soliciting testimonials from current therapy clients for the purpose of advertising, as individuals in such circumstances may be influenced by the therapistclient relationship they experience. Additionally, psychologists are prohibited from soliciting business from those who are not seeking care, whether a current or potential client. This may include a psychologist suggesting treatment services to a person who has just experienced a car accident or handing out business cards to individuals at a funeral home. However, disaster or community outreach services are not prohibited, as these are services to the community. Psychologists are prohibited from making false statements knowingly about their training, credentials, services, and fees, and are also prohibited from making knowingly deceptive or exaggerated statements about the success or scientific evidence for their services. In this way, limits are placed on the influence of practitioners on those in vulnerable situations.
Identification of Symptoms

What, then, does an ethical symptom awareness intervention look like? It would involve clearly differentiating between clinical and nonclinical levels of distress, with an indication of what types of intervention strategies may be most effective for each. For example, in cases of mild symptomatology, individuals may be encouraged to use a stepped care approach beginning with bibliotherapy, psychoeducation, and increases in social support. Also important is the provision of accurate, research-based information regarding symptoms of psychological disorders and treatment options. This may call for challenging our assumptions that psychotherapy is helpful for all psychological distress. Recent studies of grief counseling and postdisaster crisis counseling, for example, suggest there may be an iatrogenic effect of therapy for some individuals (Bonanno & Lilienfeld, 2008). On the other hand, some research indicates that individuals with subclinical levels of distress who receive treatment early may avoid developing more severe pathology (e.g., prodromal psychosis; Killackey & Yung, 2007). In programming for all components of health beliefs, not just severity, the credibility of psychotherapy is dependent upon ethical, appropriate public health statements and service marketing.

Many examples of mental health education campaigns have been discussed in the literature, often focusing simultaneously on increasing awareness of mental illness, destigmatizing individuals with mental illness, and increasing awareness of mental health resources. The Defeat Depression Campaign of the UK was designed with these goals in mind, and results of nationally representative polls before, during, and after the campaign indicated positive changes in public attitude toward depression and recognition of personal experiences of symptoms (Paykel, Tylee, & Wright, 1997). Similarly, more recent national campaigns in Australia have provided some evidence that education increases public accuracy in identifying mental illness (Jorm & Kelly, 2007). National screening day initiatives for depression, substance abuse, and other psychological disorders also aim to increase awareness of illness severity for individuals who may not recognize symptoms as signs of illness warranting treatment.

Approximately 71% (Lipscomb et al., 2004; Thompson et al., 2004) of individuals report looking to their primary care physician for mental health information, treatment, and referrals. However, many physicians lack the appropriate knowledge to identify mental health problems (Hodges, Inch, & Silver, 2001). After examining five decades (19502000) of articles evaluating the adequacy of physician training in detecting, diagnosing, and treating mental health, Hodges et al. (2001) offer several suggestions for improving primary care physicians’ training to effectively identify patients with mental health issues. Beyond learning the diagnostic criteria for the major disorders and providing appropriate medications when needed, however, physicians also need to be aware that they can act as a “cue to action” in the patient seeking psychotherapy. Such cues would alert the patient that his or her symptoms of distress or depression had reached severe levels and that the trusted family physician believes additional treatment is needed.
Influence of Demographic Variables on Perceived Severity

An individual’s personal label of the symptoms and illness are thought to contribute to perceived severity. In a study of four large-scale surveys of psychiatric help seeking, Kessler, Brown, and Broman (1981) found that women more often labeled feelings of distress as emotional problems than men did, a factor thought to help explain the consistent finding that men seek mental health services less often than women even when experiencing similar emotional problems. Similarly, Nykvist, Kjellberg, and Bildt (2002) found that among men and women reporting neck and stomach pains, women were more likely to attribute pains to psychological distress, while men were more likely to indicate no significant cause and little concern regarding the somatic symptoms.

Relatively little research has been conducted regarding how individuals of diverse backgrounds perceive the severity of their mental illness symptoms. However, some evidence suggests that individuals of different ethnic backgrounds appraise the severity of their illness symptoms differently, such that individuals from minority cultures are more influenced by their own culture’s norms about mental illness symptoms than White Americans (Dinges & Cherry, 1995; Okazaki & Kallivayalil, 2002). Cues to action from providers may be more effective if they are framed in a way that is congruent with individuals’ attributions about symptoms. In other cases, education about symptoms, provided in a culturally sensitive manner, may be necessary. This is an area where additional research is needed to determine practice.

Older adults are more likely to seek treatment when they perceive a strong need for treatment (Coulton & Frost, 1982). However, some aspects of aging may influence whether or not older adults perceive ambiguous symptoms as psychological in nature or due to physical ailments. For example, among older adults, particularly those experiencing chronic pain or illness, somatic symptoms of mental illness may be interpreted as symptoms of physical illness or part of a natural aging process, rather than as symptoms of depression or anxiety (Smallbrugge, Pot, Jongenelis, Beekman, & Eefsting, 2005). In this way, some depression symptoms may be overlooked by older individuals and the physicians who see them (Gatz & Smyer, 1992).
Systems approaches to addressing perceived benefits
Even if clients do view their symptoms as warranting attention, they are unlikely to seek treatment if they do not believe they will benefit from professional services. Thus, increasing perceived benefits of treatment is a second approach to increasing appropriate utilization.

Public Perceptions of Psychotherapy

In response to changing health care markets, the 1996 APA Council of Representatives called for the creation of a public education campaign to inform consumers about psychological care, research, services, and the value of psychological interventions (Farberman, 1997). Results of preprogram focus group assessments indicated that participants were frustrated with changes in health care service delivery in the United States and many participants did not know whether their health insurance policy included mental health benefits. Participants indicated that they did not know when it was appropriate to seek professional help, and often cited lack of confidence in mental health outcomes, lack of coverage, and shame associated with help seeking as main reasons for not seeking treatment. Participants reported that the best way to educate the public about the value of psychological services was to show life stories of how they helped real people with real-life issues. Informed by the focus groups and telephone interviews, APA launched a pilot campaign in two states using television, radio, and print advertisements depicting individuals who have benefited from psychotherapy, as well as an 800 telephone number, a consumer brochure, and a consumer information website. During the first six months of the campaign, over 4,000 callers contacted the campaign service bureau for a referral to the state psychological association to request campaign literature, with over 3,000 people visiting the Internet site weekly (Farberman, 1997). In sum, addressing perceived benefits of treatment means answering the question, “What good would it do?” When individuals are made aware of how treatment could improve their daily functioning, they may be more motivated to overcome the perceived barriers to treatment. Especially for individuals who have not previously sought mental health treatment, describing realistic expectations for treatment may be an essential first step in orienting individuals to make informed treatment decisions.
Public Preference for Providers of Care

Many different types of professionals serve as mental health service providers, and individuals’ beliefs about the relative benefit of seeking help from various lay and professional sources likely impact decisions to seek help. Roles have shifted in treatment over time, with the introduction of managed care and the increased role of the PsyD, master’s-level psychologist or counselor, and MSW as treatment providers. Counseling has been considered a primary role of clergy for many decades; however, specificity of counseling training has changed over time, with some clergy receiving specific training as counselors within seminary education. Primary care physicians have been relied upon for treatment through pharmacotherapy with the development of improved medications for depression, anxiety, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, among others. While few primary care physicians conduct traditional therapy sessions, many individuals report that they first share mental health concerns with their primary care physician, making this profession an important potential gateway for psychotherapy (Mickus, Colenda, & Hogan, 2000).

Level of distress may also influence where individuals seek help: Consumer Reports’ popular survey of over 4,000 participants found that individuals tend to see a primary care physician for less severe emotional distress and seek a mental health professional for more severe distress (Consumer Reports, 1995), while Jorm, Griffiths, and Christensen (2004) found that individuals with depressive symptoms were most likely to use self-help strategies in mild to moderate levels of severity and to seek professional help at high levels of severity.

Some support has been found for the importance of a match between individuals’ perceptions of the cause of symptoms and the type of treatment they seek. In a German national survey, perceptions of the cause of depression and schizophrenia significantly predicted preferences for professional or lay help. Those who endorsed a biological cause of illness reported they would be more likely to advise an ailing friend to seek help from a psychiatrist, family physician, or psychotherapist, and less likely to advise seeking help from a confidant. Perceptions of social-psychological causes of illness, such as family conflict, isolation, or alcohol abuse, were related to advising a confidant, self-help group, or psychotherapist rather than a psychiatrist or physician (Angermeyer et al., 1999).
Demographic Variables and Perceived Benefits

Perceptions of mental health treatment as beneficial are likely shaped by cultural influences as well as an individual’s personal experience. In a subset of randomly selected individuals from a nationally representative survey, Schnittker et al. (2000) compared Black and White respondents’ beliefs about the etiology of mental illnesses and their attitudes toward using professional mental health services. Black respondents were more likely than White respondents to endorse views of mental illness as God’s will or due to bad character, and less likely to attribute mental illness to genetic variation or poor family upbringing. These beliefs predicted less positive views of mental health services, and the authors found that more than 40% of the racial difference in attitudes toward treatment was attributable to differences in beliefs about the cause of mental illness.

Older adults’ reluctance to seek psychological services has been connected with more negative attitudes toward psychological services (Speer, Williams, West, & Dupree, 1991). Attitudes toward psychotherapy appear to improve by aging cohort, however. Currin, Hayslip, Schneider, and Kooken (1998) assessed dimensions of mental health attitudes among two different cohorts of older adults and found that younger cohorts of older adults hold more positive attitudes toward mental health services. Thus, attitudes among older adults may be less attributable to age than to changing cultural acceptance of mental illness over time. Older adults who have engaged in professional psychological treatment tend to see mental health treatment as more beneficial than their counterparts who have never sought treatment (Speer et al., 1991).

Across diverse religious orientations, beliefs in a spiritual cause of mental illness have been associated with preference for treatment from a religious leader rather than a mental health professional (Chadda et al., 2001; Cinnirella & Loewenthal, 1999). For individuals who interpret psychological distress symptoms as spiritually based, a religious leader may be viewed as a more beneficial provider than a traditional mental health professional. Some clients prefer to see clergy for mental health concerns. Some psychologists have formed relationships between religious organizations and mental health providers to foster collaboration and access to many care options for community members (McMinn, Chaddock, & Edwards, 1998). Benes, Walsh, McMinn, Dominguez, and Aikins (2000) describe a model of clergypsychology collaboration. Using Catholic Social Services as a medium through which collaboration took place, psychologists, priests, religious school teachers, and parishioners collaborated through a continuum of care beginning with prevention (public speaking about mental health topics, parent training workshops) through intervention (1-800 access numbers, support groups, and counseling services). The authors note that bidirectional referralsnot simply clergy referring to cliniciansand a sharing of techniques and expertise are keys to the success of such programs. Providing care to individuals through the source that they consider most credible or accessible is an innovative strategy for increasing perceived treatment benefits and decreasing barriers
Marketing Psychological Services

While the idea of marketing psychological services may seem unappealing to some psychologists, marketing strategies designed to encourage appropriate utilization may serve as both a strategy for the field of psychology as well as an outreach service to improve public health. In order to benefit from psychotherapy, individuals must view it as a legitimate way to address their problems. Strategies may include marketing psychological services at a national level, such as the APA’s 1996 public education campaign (Farberman, 1997); at a group level, such as a community mental health system providing rationale for increased funding; or at an individual level, such as an independent private practitioner seeking to increase referrals. Two theories, social marketing theory and problem-solution marketing, are useful models for developing effective mental health campaigns.
Social Marketing Theory

Rochlen and Hoyer (2005) identify social marketing theory as a framework for identifying strategies specifically aimed at changing social behaviors. Three principles define social marketing: negative demand, sensitive issues, and invisible preliminary benefits (Andreason, 2004). Negative demand describes the challenge of selling a product (psychotherapy, in this case) that the individual does not want to buy. In the case of individuals who see therapy as unhelpful or a frightening experience, addressing negative demand would include considering the viewpoint of a reluctant audience and perhaps utilizing the Stages of Change model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984), in which the goal of the marketing campaign would be to move an individual from the precontemplation stage to the contemplation stage of change. Social marketing theory also takes into account the degree of sensitivity in the task being encouraged; that is, seeking psychotherapy requires a greater amount of mental energy and vulnerability than less sensitive purchases, such as a new motorcycle. The principle of invisible preliminary benefit reminds those marketing psychological services that the benefits of choosing to seek psychological help are often not seen immediately, as they are when receiving a pain medication. Therefore, marketing strategies for mental health must make consumers aware of psychotherapy’s benefits and the long-term prospect of improving quality of life.