Affiliation:
1. V.M. Bekhterev National Medical Research Center for Psychiatry and Neurology; I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
2. V.M. Bekhterev National Medical Research Center for Psychiatry and Neurology
3. Military Medical Academy named after S.M. Kirov
Abstract
The relevance of the development of a preventive direction in the field of mental health care is beyond doubt. Mental health is an integral part and the most important component of the quality of health and includes not only the absence of mental disorders and various forms of disability caused by them, but also the state of mental well-being, in which the individual realizes his individual abilities, can withstand stress loads and be productive in everyday and professional activities. In this respect, the preservation of mental health is at the core not only of the well-being of the individual and his microsociety, but also of the functioning of society as a whole. Mental health care not only concerns the early diagnosis and effective treatment of mental disorders, but also focuses on broad aspects of population psychoprophylaxis and informational psychohygiene, contributing to the promotion of mental health and reducing the prevalence of the most relevant mental disorders. There is evidence of the positive impact of public health interventions on the prevalence of mental disorders. The general principles of the system of psychoprophylaxis imply the organization of three components: psychohygienic, psychoprophylactic and public mental health monitoring. The main directions of implementation of population psychoprophylaxis are: educational, socio-economic, environmental, humanistic and informational. Informational hygiene is a basic element of strengthening the mental health of the population, because a number of effects of informational influence can be predictors of mental ill-being of the population. Approaches to the assessment of informational content for its monitoring for destructive and manipulative content are proposed.
Reference29 articles.
1. 1 Lim S.S., Vos T., Flaxman A.D., et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990– 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The Lancet. 2012; 380: 2224–2260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8
2. 2 GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2018; 392 (10159): 1789–1858.
3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32279-7
4. 3 Niessen L.W., Bridges J., Lau B.D., at al. Assessing the Impact of Economic Evidence on Policymakers in Health Care – A Systematic Review. Methods Research Report. AHRQ Publication № 12(13)-EHC133-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2012. 47 p. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114636/ (accessed 10.12.2022).
5. 4 Leonov S.A., Son I.M., Ermakov S.P., Devishev R.I. Evaluation of economic losses of public health on the basis of global burden of DALY diseases and effectiveness estimation of expenses for all types of medical care with the usage of QALY index. Manager Zdravoochranenia. 2011; 6: 14–28 (In Russian).