The role of WHO’s MHD&AP as a knowledge-based regulatory instrument
in the mental health policy processes in Hungary
Mental Health Declaration and Action Plan had regulatory effects on the national level, since an issue that had formerly been absent from the national agenda has been brought up, partly as a result of the formal collaboration between WHO and Hungary, but mainly as a result of self-regulation, i.e. the European/international ‘language’ of mental health policy was adopted partly as a way of conformity, partly as a rational step in the hope of funding... Read more ...
The Hungarian National Programme for Mental Health and its relation to the WHO-initiatives
In this article we shall examine the connections and disconnections between WHO's Mental Health Declaration & Action Plan and the Hungarian National Programme for Mental Health (NPMH). Read more ...
WHO, Mental Health, Europe
Purpose: This report focuses on the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Europe. It examines its dimensions, history, relationships and the knowledge that it draws on and creates in its work. As a specific focal point for this exploration we examine knowledge in relation to the development of a Ministerial Conference which took place in Helsinki in January 2005 which launched WHO Europe’s Mental Health Declaration and Action Plan for Europe. The research is part of the... Read more ...
Knowledge and Mental Health Policy: Reforming the Structure of Mental Health Services in Norway
The report analyses “Restructuring of mental health service provision” with a main focus on the formation and implementation of the Mental Health Action Plan 1998 - 2008. “Restructuring of mental health services” in our context relates to the formal organization designs that are set up (evolved/decided) at three levels of government: the national, specialist services and municipal services. Formal restructuring involves processes that intend to reorganize existing service units and design new... Read more ...
Context or comparison?
New ways of governing often entail the development of indicators, benchmarks and other instruments of comparison. These risk failing to take into account the specificities of particular interests, particular situations and particular times with particular groups. How and why has comparison become so powerful? How might we take account of the idiosyncrasies of context?
