Human rights in mental healthcare; A review of current global situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between mental health and human rights is complex and bidirectional. Global mental health movements have been emphasizing the promotion of human rights in mental health care in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the WHO QualityRights Initiative. The main objective of this review is to have an overview of the current global situation of human rights in mental health services by performing a review of scientific literature. The literature search and elimination process yielded a total of 26 articles focussing on human rights-related reports and tools. Further assessment of these articles clearly shows that despite significant improvements in mental health service delivery in the past decade, there is still substantial reporting of the continuing prominence of stigmatizing attitudes, and human rights violations and abuses in mental health settings. The human rights perspective requires society, particularly policymakers, to actively promote necessary conditions for all individuals to fully realize their rights. We suggest developing a more comprehensive model in mental health that integrates human rights into existing services and approaches. A model that recognizes that all people with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities are rights holders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".