The National Mental Health Programme (NMHP)
As like other programmes launched by the Government of India, National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) has certain objectives to be met. The programme was launched in the year 1986 and was reformulated in National Health Policy 2002. The original objectives included the following –
(i) To ensure the availability and accessibility of minimum mental healthcare for all in the foreseeable future, particularly to the most vulnerable and underprivileged sections of the population;
(ii) To encourage the application of mental health knowledge in general healthcare and in social development; and
(iii) To promote community participation in the mental health service development and to stimulate efforts towards self-help in the community.
Under this …show more content…
There should be proper norms to check the implementation of the programmes and not only this, acceptance matters a lot. That is, where and to whom are the programmes implemented? Are those people really in need of the programme? Are they able to cope up with it? Are they utilizing the benefits at the utmost level? All these things need to be checked at regular intervals. Even today after 12 years of the revised edition of the programme, we have not reached close to that ideal situation, where psychiatrists, doctors, hospitals, and support group are available in plenty. The government hospitals have not yet reached many of the districts of the states (example – West Bengal) where they can provide a single doctor for mental health related issues. It is the private hospitals and doctors who are playing the major role and that too for those who have money. And for those who are poor, they not only face stigma in the society for bearing a mentally ill patient at home but also suffer throughout life without getting proper …show more content…
Programmes suiting Ladakh would not suit to that of Kerala or Rajasthan. Even within states we have wide variations. Same is the case with cultures, so the acceptance rate of different programmes also varies widely. Like Virginia, Montana and California have opted for three different kinds of patterns to improve upon mental health, same should be done with our country. And the investments should be made in a more concrete way as mental health has remained a global health problem just because of improper investments. Till now there are about 28% of the nations who not have a fixed budget for mental health problems and if this continues to the state then by 2020 about 15% of the entire population are going to face serious mental health problems of one kind or the other. There happens to be culture-bound syndromes also, which are needed to be assessed properly after understanding the local beliefs so that neither the patients nor their families get hurt, and can freely approach to the counselors. In short, there is a need to understand and give importance to the patient’s views as mentally ill patients should be handled with utmost care and
(i) To ensure the availability and accessibility of minimum mental healthcare for all in the foreseeable future, particularly to the most vulnerable and underprivileged sections of the population;
(ii) To encourage the application of mental health knowledge in general healthcare and in social development; and
(iii) To promote community participation in the mental health service development and to stimulate efforts towards self-help in the community.
Under this …show more content…
There should be proper norms to check the implementation of the programmes and not only this, acceptance matters a lot. That is, where and to whom are the programmes implemented? Are those people really in need of the programme? Are they able to cope up with it? Are they utilizing the benefits at the utmost level? All these things need to be checked at regular intervals. Even today after 12 years of the revised edition of the programme, we have not reached close to that ideal situation, where psychiatrists, doctors, hospitals, and support group are available in plenty. The government hospitals have not yet reached many of the districts of the states (example – West Bengal) where they can provide a single doctor for mental health related issues. It is the private hospitals and doctors who are playing the major role and that too for those who have money. And for those who are poor, they not only face stigma in the society for bearing a mentally ill patient at home but also suffer throughout life without getting proper …show more content…
Programmes suiting Ladakh would not suit to that of Kerala or Rajasthan. Even within states we have wide variations. Same is the case with cultures, so the acceptance rate of different programmes also varies widely. Like Virginia, Montana and California have opted for three different kinds of patterns to improve upon mental health, same should be done with our country. And the investments should be made in a more concrete way as mental health has remained a global health problem just because of improper investments. Till now there are about 28% of the nations who not have a fixed budget for mental health problems and if this continues to the state then by 2020 about 15% of the entire population are going to face serious mental health problems of one kind or the other. There happens to be culture-bound syndromes also, which are needed to be assessed properly after understanding the local beliefs so that neither the patients nor their families get hurt, and can freely approach to the counselors. In short, there is a need to understand and give importance to the patient’s views as mentally ill patients should be handled with utmost care and