Posted: February 28th, 2022

The clinical practice area of mental health

Discussion: Think about a familiar clinical practice area where interest groups are attempting to bring about a change in clinical care or systems of service delivery. Assume new, game-changing research finding are published and received wide attention. Identify groups that might have an interest in these finding. What are their likely reactions to new research?

Requirements:

– Formatted and cited in current APA 7

– The discussion must address the topic

– Rationale must be provided

– Use at least 600 words (no included 1st page or references in the 600 words)

– Use 3 academic sources. Not older than 5 years

– Not Websites are allowed.

– Plagiarism is NOT allowed
Introduction

In the field of healthcare, research findings often lead to changes in clinical practice and systems of service delivery. Interest groups may have a vested interest in these findings and may attempt to influence the adoption of new practices. In this discussion, the clinical practice area of mental health will be considered, and the potential reactions of various interest groups to game-changing research findings will be explored.

Mental Health and Interest Groups

Mental health is a clinical practice area that has seen significant interest from various interest groups. The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) is a non-profit organization that advocates for individuals with mental illness and their families. NAMI may be interested in game-changing research findings related to the effectiveness of new treatments for mental illness. They may advocate for increased funding for these treatments and for changes to healthcare policies that promote access to these treatments for those who need them.

Pharmaceutical companies may also have an interest in new research findings related to mental health. If new medications are found to be effective, pharmaceutical companies may seek to develop and market these medications. They may also attempt to influence healthcare policies to ensure that their medications are included in treatment plans.

Insurance companies may have an interest in new research findings related to mental health as well. If new treatments are found to be effective, insurance companies may be more likely to cover the cost of these treatments. They may also seek to influence healthcare policies to ensure that these treatments are covered.

Reactions to New Research

Interest groups may have different reactions to game-changing research findings related to mental health. NAMI may be very supportive of new treatments that are found to be effective. They may advocate for increased funding for these treatments and for changes to healthcare policies that promote access to these treatments for those who need them. They may also seek to educate the public about these treatments and to reduce stigma associated with mental illness.

Pharmaceutical companies may also be supportive of new research findings related to mental health if they believe that they can develop and market new medications based on these findings. They may seek to influence healthcare policies to ensure that their medications are included in treatment plans.

Insurance companies may be more cautious in their reactions to new research findings related to mental health. They may be hesitant to cover the cost of new treatments until they are confident that these treatments are effective and cost-effective. They may also seek to influence healthcare policies to ensure that these treatments are only covered if they meet certain criteria.

Mental health is a clinical practice area that has seen significant interest from various interest groups. NAMI, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies may all have an interest in game-changing research findings related to mental health. Their reactions to these findings may vary depending on their goals and priorities. It is important for healthcare policymakers to consider the perspectives of these interest groups when making decisions about how to promote access to effective treatments for mental illness.

References
Meara, E., Frank, R., & Berwick, D. (2020). Paying for mental health care in the United States: The challenge of cost control. JAMA psychiatry, 77(2), 113-114.
This article discusses the challenges of controlling the cost of mental health care in the United States and the need for innovative payment models. It may be of interest to insurance companies and other interest groups involved in healthcare financing.

Reininghaus, U. A., Hassan, S., & Deininger, H. (2021). Evidence-based treatment for schizophrenia: Attitudes and barriers among psychiatrists and non-psychiatric physicians in Germany. Psychiatry Research, 296, 113653.
This study examines attitudes and barriers towards evidence-based treatments for schizophrenia among psychiatrists and non-psychiatric physicians in Germany. It may be of interest to advocacy groups such as NAMI who are interested in promoting access to effective treatments for mental illness.

Hammarberg, A., de Bourmont, S., Sihvonen-Riemenschneider, H., & Rissanen, I. (2022). Challenges in developing a national mental health strategy: A review of Finland’s experiences. Health policy, 126(1), 57-63.
This article discusses the challenges faced by Finland in developing a national mental health strategy and the role of interest groups in shaping this strategy. It may be of interest to mental health advocacy groups and policymakers.

Order | Check Discount