This article is a commentary on:
Reimagining Community Mental Health Care Services: Case Study of a Need Based Biopsychosocial Response Initiated During Pandemic
J. Steven LambertiA Commentary on
Reimagining Community Mental Health Care Services: Case Study of a Need Based Biopsychosocial Response Initiated During Pandemic
by Sunder, P., Vincent, A. S., Saju, M. K., Moorthy, A. S., Paulose, G., Robins, R., Prabhu, A. V., Arun, M., Rajah, A., and Venkateswaran, C. (2021). Front. Psychiatry 12:731321. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.731321
As a professor at a Western medical center, I first want to acknowledge my inexperience with the Indian healthcare system as well as resource differences that exist between our care systems. Also, I work at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC), which gave birth to the biopsychosocial model and is the focus of this special issue. With these standpoints in mind, I offer the following commentary on Sunder's et al. recent article (1). I'll begin with some background about URMC followed by discussion of the coronavirus pandemic to provide context. Then I will discuss the exemplary work currently being done in Kerala, India along with our local efforts to address the pandemic. Lastly, I'll highlight potential advantages of Kerala's innovative approach to care.
The Biopsychosocial Model
The biopsychosocial model was proposed in 1977 by Engel (2) who trained as an internist, in collaboration with psychiatrist Dr. John Romano (3). In contrast to the prevailing biomedical ethos of the time and its myopic focus on biological processes, Engle and Romano's theory provided conceptual links between the body, the mind, and society. Yet translating this conceptual framework into clinical practice has remained a challenge for mental health service delivery in the United States. A 2009 report by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) rating overall quality of mental health services gave the United States a “D” grade (i.e., unacceptably poor) (4). One of NAMI's key recommendations was to better integrate mental and physical healthcare through co-location of medical and behavioral health professionals. Progress has since been made in service integration (5, 6), forging real-world healthcare bridges between the biological and psychological dimensions of the biopsychosocial model. The coronavirus pandemic, however, has recently revealed an alarming disconnect between healthcare and society in the United States.
The Great Pandemic
The coronavirus pandemic has now accounted for more deaths in the United States than the Influenza Pandemic of 1918 (7), this despite advances in public health and widely available vaccines. Many in the United States refuse to be vaccinated or to wear masks despite the proven effectiveness of these strategies (8–10). In explaining this impasse, scholars have pointed to the role of social and cultural factors including politicization and media sensationalism (11, 12). These influences have led some to view public health practices as an affront to personal liberty, thus undermining trust in medical authorities and healthcare providers alike.
People with severe mental illness are among those now bearing the brunt of the pandemic (13). For example, individuals with schizophrenia have high rates of mortality following coronavirus infection (14) in addition to having poor access to healthcare services (15, 16). Lockdown strategies to contain the virus have threatened to further limit healthcare access both here in Rochester and in Kerala, India. In response, healthcare providers in both regions have worked to promote access to treatment for people with severe mental illness through telehealth strategies. Yet there have also been differences in how these communities have faced the challenge of delivering healthcare to their most vulnerable citizens in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
Kerala, India
Prior to the pandemic, Kerala had developed a reputation for achieving good health outcomes despite having a low per capita income (17). With limited healthcare resources, Kerala's Mehac Foundation undertook a novel and highly efficient approach to care delivery that required broad and active community participation. Borrowing from the field of palliative care, the foundation implemented a flexible model of service delivery based on Public-Private-People Partnership (1). This approach utilized existing community resources including public governance organizations (e.g., panchayats), private organizations (e.g., non-governmental and corporate organizations), and—most notably—people (e.g., family members and volunteers). Getting all of these individuals and organizations to pull together required a shared sense of purpose as well as high levels of communication and cooperation. Mehac provided the necessary vision while using existing ties with governmental and volunteering agencies to access local healthcare professionals, to link patients to services and to ensure medication delivery. The foundation also made substantive efforts to supply education, food, and monetary support to those in need.
Rochester, New York, USA
The URMC Department of Psychiatry is home to Strong Ties, an outpatient clinic for people with severe mental disorders. Prior to the pandemic, over 90% of services were delivered within the walls of our clinic. At the height of the pandemic, Strong Ties utilized telehealth services for 70% of all patient contacts. Live visits were generally limited to crisis intervention, new patients and those without telephone or computer access. Delivery of medications, clothing and food was conducted through a team of care managers and two assertive community treatment teams along with use of community pharmacies for prescriptions. Although these approaches ensured continuity of care, they did not necessarily build resilience among service recipients.
Comments from Rochester to Kerala
Mehac's novel strategy of involving a wide-ranging coalition of agencies and individuals is consistent with current recommendations for optimizing continuity of care for people with severe mental illness during the pandemic (18). However, Mehac's implementation is likely to have significant benefits beyond simply maintaining continuity of healthcare. In particular, their emphasis on community engagement may improve mental health by directly addressing social determinants including poverty and lack of health literacy (19, 20). Also, research has suggested that being negatively judged by others is among the most harmful stressors for people with severe mental illness (21). Such stress within family settings is strongly associated with increased rates of psychotic relapse and hospitalization (22). Mehac's efforts to educate, support and empower “family as the unit of care” are therefore likely to reduce the need for psychiatric hospitalization by reducing stress and stigma within the home. Lastly, engaging a broad social fabric of community stakeholders is likely to build confidence and trust in healthcare professionals as leaders in the fight against COVID-19.
Sunder et al. (1) have acknowledged that a formal evaluation of Mehac's approach has yet to be conducted, and we look forward to that possibility. Until then, I commend my Indian colleagues for their exemplary leadership in addressing the social dimension of the biopsychosocial model.
Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Sunder P, Vincent AS, Saju MK, Moorthy AS, Paulose G, Robins R, et al. Reimagining community mental health services: case study of a need based response initiated during pandemic. Front Psychiatry. (2021) 12:731321. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.731321
2. Engel GL. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. (1977) 196:129–36. doi: 10.1126/science.847460
3. Morse DS, Johnson KR, Cohen J. The Evolution and Legacy of the Engel and Romano Work in Biopsychosocial Medicine. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press (2013).
4. Aron L, Honberg R, Duckworth K, Kimball A, Edgar E, Carolla B, et al. Grading the States 2009: A Report on America's Health Care System for Adults With Serious Mental Illness. Arlington, VA: National Alliance on Mental Illness (2009).
5. Rodgers M, Dalton J, Harden M, Street A, Parker G, Eastwood A. Integrated care to address the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness: a mapping review of the recent evidence on barriers, facilitators and evaluations. Int J Integr Care. (2018) 18:1–12. doi: 10.5334/ijic.2605
6. Lenz AS, Dell'Aquila J, Balkin RS. Effectiveness of integrated primary and behavioral healthcare. J Menl Health Couns. (2018) 40:249–65. doi: 10.17744/mehc.40.3.06
7. Smith-Schoenwalder C. U.S. Coronavirus Death Toll Surpasses 1918 Flu Pandemic. Available online at: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-09-20/us-coronavirus-death-toll-surpasses-1918-flu-pandemic
8. Bernal JL, Andrews N, Gower C, Gallagher E, Simmons R, Thelwall S, et al. Effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines against the b.1.617.2 (delta) variant. N Engl J Med. (2021) 385:585–94. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2108891
9. Swift MD, Breeher LE, Tande AJ, Tommaso CP, Hainy CM, Chu H, et al. Effectiveness of messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare personnel. Clin Infect Dis. (2021) 73:1376–9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab361
10. Brooks JT, Butler JC. Effectiveness of mask wearing to control community spread of SARS-CoV-2. JAMA. (2021) 325:998–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.1505
11. Van Scoy LJ, Snyder B, Miller EL, Toyobo O, Grewel A, Ha G, et al. Public anxiety and distrust due to perceived politization and media sensationalism during early COVID-19 media messaging. J Commun Healthc. (2021) 14:193–205. doi: 10.1080/17538068.2021.1953934
12. Fisk RJ. Barriers to vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) control: experience from the United States. Glob Health J. (2021) 5:51–5. doi: 10.1016/j.glohj.2021.02.005
13. Dickerson F, Katsafanas E, Newman T, Origoni A, Rowe K, Squire A, et al. Experiences of persons with serious mental illness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Serv. (2021) 73:133–40. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202100130
14. Nemani K, Li C, Olfson M, Blessing EM, Razavian N, Chen J, et al. Association of psychiatric disorders with mortality among patients with COVID-19. JAMA Psychiatry. (2021) 78:380–6. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.4442
15. Ford G, Pauly V, Leone M, Llorca PM, Orleans V, Loundou A, et al. Disparities in intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients with schizophrenia and COVID-19: a national cohort study. Schizophr Bull. (2021) 47:624–34. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbaa158
16. Nasrallah HA, Meyer JM, Goff DC, McEvoy JP, Davis SM, Stroup TS, et al. Low rates of treatment for hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes in schizophrenia: data from the CATIE schizophrenia trial sample at baseline. Schizoph Res. (2006) 86:15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2006.06.026
17. Madore A, Rosenberg J, Dreisbach T, Weintraub R. Positive Outlier: Health Outcomes in Kerala, India Over Time. Kerala: Cases in Global Health Delivery, GHD-042 (2018).
18. Kopelovich SL, Monroe-DeVita M, Buck BE, Brenner C, Moser L, Jarskog LF, et al. Community mental health care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic: practical strategies for improving care for people with serious mental illness. Community Ment Health J. (2021) 57:405–15. doi: 10.1007/s10597-020-00662-z
19. Compton MT, Shim RS. The social determinants of mental health. Focus. (2015) 13:419–25. doi: 10.1176/appi.focus.20150017
20. Rowlands G, Shaw A, Jaswal S, Smith S, Harpham T. Health literacy and the social determinants of health: a qualitative model from adult learners. Health Promot Int. (2017) 32:130–8. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dav093
21. Jones SR, Fernyhough C. A new look at the neural diathesis-stress model of schizophrenia: the primacy of social-evaluative and uncontrollable situations. Schizophr Bull. (2007) 33:1171–77. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbl058
Keywords: pandemic (COVID-19), severe mental disorder, schizophrenia, health service access, telehealth, community partnership and service, public mental health, foundation partnerships
Citation: Lamberti JS (2022) Commentary: Reimagining Community Mental Health Care Services: Case Study of a Need Based Biopsychosocial Response Initiated During Pandemic. Front. Psychiatry 13:859884. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.859884
Received: 21 January 2022; Accepted: 10 May 2022;
Published: 27 May 2022.
Edited by:
Peiyuan Qiu, Sichuan University, ChinaReviewed by:
Christiane Waller, Paracelsus Medizinischen Privatuniversität, Nuremberg, GermanyCopyright © 2022 Lamberti. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: J. Steven Lamberti, steve_lamberti@urmc.rochester.edu