Introduction

Psychotic disorders, and particularly first-episode psychosis (FEP), constitute one of the major health problems worldwide. According to Powell et al. (2021) the productive life span of 15-25 years is recognized as the most promising period for people, and FEP causes disruption of patients education, employment, and communication which leads to reclusive lifestyle and mental health issues in the future. As per Mok et al. (2024), the worlds problem of psychosis becomes evident from the overwhelming figures of readmission and outliving the need for the maintenance of the patients, 80% of patients with FEP suffer further psychotic episode within 5 years of attaining remission. This essay considers this global health problem, its dimensions, and the various healthcare systems responses to the burden of psychosis in various countries.

Global Public Health Challenge: Psychotic Disorders

According to Shields et al. (2022), psychotic conditions are a global health concern, which afflicts 21 million individuals across the globe. Its clinical features are interference of delusions, hallucinations, and loss of skill in social functioning mainly in the age of 15-25, where the performance age is. There is a lot of mortality with the condition, with an estimated 10 percent of the individuals dying from suicidal ideation. On the other hand, Heun-Johnson et al. (2021) states that regionally the treatment outcomes differ constitutively, high income economies perform better achieving 70-80% of remission with early interventions, lower income regions around 10-15%. There are issues surrounding early diagnosis and treatment especially in first-episode psychosis (FEP) but the window for intervention is critical. As per Singh et al. (2023), 60% of the sufferers would be able to remit symptoms but relapse is likely for around 80% of the patients who remain tough four years post remission. A number of patients well managed in poor patient centred health care systems still suffer with acute relapse but constant intervention helps in relieving these distressing symptoms 30 percent did experience yearly post-discharge relapses in patient-centric systems.

Context and Scope of the Global Public Health Challenge

Across high, middle and low-income countries, the burden of psychosis is perceived, however, there are differences in terms of degree or the scale of impact. According to Griffiths et al. (2022), in poorer countries, such as Low-Income countries, theres a lack of access to specialized treatment because scarce healthcare resources are available. Spanning geographies, there are programs for early interventions targeting high-income countries, still, loss of treatment effects after discharge is a concern everywhere. Psychotic disorders are considered a total imbalance within the general mental health burden by the world health organization; however, inconsistencies on this issue are evident on a cross continental basis.

Organization and Structure of Health Systems

Certain countries like the Australia, United Kingdom and United States have set the standards by having highly efficient and structured early intervention services for psychosis. As per Valentine et al. (2020), Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) for instance provides optimal and individualized services during the first two eps for psychotic disorders in Australia. These systems devout robust health care facilities with specialized clinics; digital interventions; specialized personnel. However, Wood et al. (2021) states that these same health care facilities are not able to provide long term follow up and continuity of care. Other middle-income countries such as India and Brazil, Psychosis care is provided mainly by psychiatric practice whether inpatient or outpatient but the early intervention is greatly absent. Community-based care is still being developed but a lack of resources means a low availability of services. Digital health innovations are developing but are rarely implemented. Hyatt et al. (2024) states the low-income countries consist of unapologetic regions with underfunded health systems with little to none dedicated to mental health. Psychosis is also managed primarily at general hospitals because patients too access experts that are few and available. Lack of formal health care facilities have made many areas adopt traditional methods of treatment.

Function and Financing of Health Systems

According to Leuci et al. (2022), Medicare pays approximately for 70 percent of the care of psychosis in Australia. There is no denial of a comparison to the UKs National Health Service. America provides mental health care for the very low-income-mostly through Medicaid; however, availability is cohort specific. The Horyzons Platform was designed in Australia, and is currently being deployed into the Health System in governments participatory fashion. On the other hand, Meyer-Kalos et al. (2023) states that in middle-income countries Psychosis care is mostly supported through dual systems of funding, public and private. In India Mental illness was considered within the scope of the National Menta Health Programme, however out-of-pocket payments were also significant. The Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) has some level of public provision of mental health services; however, access may be high (Addington et al. 2020). Low-income countries, generally having under-funded basic health systems, rely upon external sources for funding. Less than 1% of a governments health expenditure goes to mental health comparably. The pressures of out-of-pocket payments, make reach to care only to the periphery of vulnerable centers.

Policy and Organizational Structures

As for the High-Income Countries, these have mental health policies in place. Bennett and Rosenheck (2021), states that Early intervention for psychosis is advanced in Australia and the UK, which use digital technologies such as Horyzons. Policies in the US have through the federal government, and at the state level implemented blocks such as the Community Mental Health Service Block Grant, although there is disparity in service quality. The Middle-Income Countries which include India and Brazil have begun crafting national mental health plans. In India, the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 is focused on provision of holistic mental healthcare. Brazil has RAPS which offers community centered management of psychosis. As per Kline et al. (2023), the Mental health policies in Low-Income Countries tend to be non-existent or poorly developed and implemented. Most low-income countries do not formulate national response strategies for psychosis and the care approaches are disorganized. In some areas, traditional curlers are known to be very important in management.

Staffing, Facilities, and Preventive Services

As per Westfall et al. (2021), the distribution of the mental health workforce is grossly it shows a variation. The high-income countries have an average of 9 psychiatrists for every 10,000 people. Australia has 13 psychiatrists, 90 mental health nurses for every 100,000 people. The figure for USA stands at 10.54 and 4 psychologists per 100,000 inhabitants (Oluwoye et al. 2020). These nations have a full complement of 15-20 mental health establishments for every million population. Horyzons and other Digital platforms serve 85% of the FEP patrons in urban areas. There are noticeable gaps at these levels in terms of mental health professionals in middle-income countries. Brazil has 3.2 psychiatrists and 2.5 psychologists per 100,000 population (Jumper et al. 2024). In China it is reported as 2.2 psychiatrists per 100000 population, and it is concentrated in the cities. There are about 5-7 mental health facilities for every million populations in these nations. According to Waxmann et al. (2022), about 40% of the target population gets reached with the community mental health programs. Such countries usually have 1 to 2 mental health units per million population. Specialized care in psychiatry for FEP patients is only available for 10 percent patients. WHO cites that over three quarters of the low-income countries have made 1 percent of their health budget expenditures on preventive aspects of mental health services (Mathis et al. 2024).

Regulation and Economic Support

The disparity on how countries integrate mental health into their policies and economies is marked. Countries with a high-income average invest a lot in the framework of mental health policies and governance. According to Basaraba et al. (2023), Annually Australia dedicates approximately $500 million towards mental health governance and policies. In Australia, this commission uses extensive accreditation norms that impact 95% of service provision in this sector to maintain required quality levels. Therapy for outpatients is between 85-90% repaid by universal coverage which is extended over all populations. National health insurance covers FEP treatments for up to 100% in Norway. Such countries in the third world have some emerging regulation systems, which lack implementation. According to Dillinger and Kersun (2020), its 2017 Mental Healthcare Act India has to cover mental healthcare but only a fifth of the available facilities conform to set standards. Rather, such payments occur in the absence of guarantees of health coverage for up to 60-70% of the mental health costs. According to Rolin and Richards, (2021), the regulations within the country approximately 45% of all mental health measures were effective. Concerning depression, countries who are regarded as poor can barely ensure that there is any regulation with regards to mental health.

Impact on Health Outcomes

The disparities between healthcare systems are seen to be the most pronounced at the psychosis level, and this rate varies with the income category of the nation in consideration. According to Albin et al. (2021), up to 70-80percent of the symptoms of psychosis get resolved due to early intervention of such services in high-income status nations. Two years of these programs specializations allow functional recovery in about 65 percent of people suffering from First Episode Psychosis (FEP). Extended support through a digital platform such as Horyzons brings the relapse rate down by 25%. According to Engel et al. (2024), in resource-rich systems, 30% of the patients are likely to suffer from relapses on an annual basis post discharge. Countries falling within this middle-income bracket show these regional variance metrics. Urban regions utilizing specialized services attain remission at 50 to 55 percent. As per Mok et al. (2024), Remission rates for these parts are significantly lower at 25 to 30 percent. The average time to receive care ranges between 6 to 12 months which increases co-morbidity risk by 40%. The reach of community-based care is only at 35% of the specific population group. Inadequate and insufficient resources also place low and middle-income countries in very difficult positions to turn out positive results. Very few (10-15 percent) of such FEP patients go for evidence-based treatments. In 60% of the cases, the treatment gap is more than two years (Mok et al. 2024).

Role of International Agencies

International organizations assist in global psychosis struggles by financing and targeting suitable programs. As per Heun-Johnson et al. (2024), the WHO is working through its Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) which targets mainly low- and middle-income countries which account for nearly 90% of untreated psychosis cases. Meanwhile, the World bank is currently engaging in mental health regulatory development across 25 low-income countries while international non-governmental organizations subsidize the global mental health programs with 2.5 billion dollars annually. As per Griffiths et al. (2022), such external measures are significant in areas where formal healthcare is available to less than five percent of rural people. They are especially important in low- and middle-income countries, where they frequently take the lead in the development of mental health policies and the provision of services. Such agencies assist in filling dire workforce deficits in areas where there are less than 0.1 psychiatrist per one hundred thousand population trying to upend systems where traditional healer provide the first 80% of mental health interventions.

Social, Economic, and Environmental Determinants

According to Hyatt et al. (2024), different regions of the world have different outcomes for psychosis due to sociocultural, economic, and environmental variables. For example, in the case of low-income countries with about 70% of the patients not receiving any form of treatment owing to financial constraints, unemployment and poverty as factors are both equally linked to high incidences of psychosis. Leuci et al. (2022) focuses on urban centers, where over 60% of the cases have treatment initiation periods 2 years or higher, lack of social interaction is more pronounced. Even in high-income countries with an estimated 9-13 psychiatrists for every 100,000 people, 30% of discharged patients relapse each year due to social stigma and care deficits. According to Addington et al. (2020), Urbanization is also a factor, with urban hubs in middle-income countries having about 50% to 55% remission rates as opposed to about 25%-30% in rural regions. Migration as well as the movement towards urbanized areas in globalized countries has a positive relation with increased occurrence of psychosis especially in ages 15 to 25. There is a high understaffing of community mental health programs (40% penetration) in emerging economies with rapid urbanization. This, in conjunction with the pressure of the economy and social restructuring, extends the waiting period for about 6-12 months which raises the chances of disability by about 40% (Westfall et al. 2021).

Conclusion

The worldwide issue of psychosis address for collaborative measures within the healthcare settings both nationally and internationally. High income countries reported a rate of 70-80% symptom remission with early intervention services but such resource is elusive in the low-income areas as only 10-15% of First Episode Psychosis (FEP) patients receive evidence-based care. However, in areas where at least 80% of initial contact for mental health care is provided by traditional healers (Mathis et al. 2024). In which treatment delays are reported in 60% of the cases for more than two years, typical settings should join typical improvements with advancements. Both acute and chronic care deficits have to be resolved, in particular for low resource countries which have mortality rate of 2.5 times above the high-income countries (Dillinger and Kersun, 2020).

Are you struggling to keep up with the demands of your academic journey? Don't worry, we've got your back!
Exam Question Bank is your trusted partner in achieving academic excellence for all kind of technical and non-technical subjects. Our comprehensive range of academic services is designed to cater to students at every level. Whether you're a high school student, a college undergraduate, or pursuing advanced studies, we have the expertise and resources to support you.

To connect with expert and ask your query click here Exam Question Bank