The National Mental Health Strategy: Redefining Promotion and Prevention in Mental Health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores policy documents published as part of the National Mental Health Strategy for ideas about mental health promotion and prevention, to determine the extent to which these documents adopt a primary health care approach. Discourse analysis was undertaken of key policy documents to discover the manner in which they discuss mental health promotion and prevention. Three points of departure are identified. The first of these is a focus on social and biological risk factors that manifest at an individual rather than at a social level, effectively drawing attention away from social inequalities. These documents also primarily target a population that is viewed as being "at risk" due to exposure to risk factors, shifting attention from strategies aimed at improving the health of the population as a whole. A final difference is found in the understanding of primary health care. Recent policy documents equate primary health care with the first level of service delivery in the community, primarily by general practitioners, shifting the focus of care from mental health promotion with the community to early intervention with those experiencing mental health problems. This is supported by the incorporation of a biomedical understanding into mental health prevention. While recent mental health policy documents re-assert the need for early intervention and health prevention, the form of mental health prevention espoused in these documents differs from that which informed the Declaration of Alma Alta, Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and World Health Organization's Health for All strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".