Limits...
Goals and organisational structure of the movement for global mental health.

Minas H, Wright A, Kakuma R - Int J Ment Health Syst (2014)

Bottom Line: The response rate (7%) was too small and too skewed (predominantly academics and health professionals from high income countries) to allow any clear conclusions to be drawn from the survey.The global mental health field and MGMH are in a time of transition.The move to the new secretariat is an opportunity for systematic consideration of the organisational structure and governance arrangements that will best serve the goals of MGMH.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Global and Cultural Mental Health Unit, Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia ; Movement for Global Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Background: The Movement for Global Mental Health (MGMH), established in 2008, is in a period of transition, as is the field of global mental health. The transfer of Secretariat functions from the Centre for International Mental Health to the Public Health Foundation of India was a suitable time to reflect on the goals of MGMH and on the form of organisational structure that would best serve the organisation in its efforts to achieve its goals.

Methods: An online survey was sent to the 4,000 registered members of MGMH seeking the views of the membership on both the goals of MGMH and on the preferred form of organisational structure.

Results: There was near unanimous (95%) agreement with the MGMH goals as stated at the time of the survey. The current form of organisation of MGMH, a loose network of individuals and organisations registered through the MGMH website, was the least preferred (29.9%) form of organisation for the future of MGMH. More than two thirds (70.1%) of respondents would prefer a formal legal structure, with 60% of this group favouring a Charitable Organisation structure and 40% preferring an international Association structure.

Discussion: The response rate (7%) was too small and too skewed (predominantly academics and health professionals from high income countries) to allow any clear conclusions to be drawn from the survey. However, both the fact that responses were too few and skewed and the preferences expressed by respondents raise issues for careful consideration by the current MGMH Secretariat.

Conclusions: The global mental health field and MGMH are in a time of transition. The move to the new secretariat is an opportunity for systematic consideration of the organisational structure and governance arrangements that will best serve the goals of MGMH.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Percentage of respondents choosing each of the three organisational options as their first preference by Primary Affiliation (Panel A) and percentage of respondents choosing No Change and formal legal structure (Association or Charitable Organisation) as their first preference by Affiliation (Panel B).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4127045&req=5

Figure 3: Percentage of respondents choosing each of the three organisational options as their first preference by Primary Affiliation (Panel A) and percentage of respondents choosing No Change and formal legal structure (Association or Charitable Organisation) as their first preference by Affiliation (Panel B).

Mentions: When ranking the three organizational options in their order of preference, the same number of respondents (66, 29.9%) selected No Change and Association as their first preferred option for the future organizational structure of MGMH, while 89 (42.2%) selected Charitable Organisation as their first preferred option (Table 2). Less than a third of respondents preferred that the future organizational structure of MGMH should remain unchanged – a loose grouping of interested individuals and institutions around a public website. More than two thirds (70.1%) preferred that a formal legal organisational structure be developed, with 60% of this group preferring a Charitable Organisation and 40% preferring an Association. There were no statistically significant differences in the rankings across the World Bank country categories and primary affiliation groups (Figure 3, Panel A and B).


Goals and organisational structure of the movement for global mental health.

Minas H, Wright A, Kakuma R - Int J Ment Health Syst (2014)

Percentage of respondents choosing each of the three organisational options as their first preference by Primary Affiliation (Panel A) and percentage of respondents choosing No Change and formal legal structure (Association or Charitable Organisation) as their first preference by Affiliation (Panel B).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4127045&req=5

Figure 3: Percentage of respondents choosing each of the three organisational options as their first preference by Primary Affiliation (Panel A) and percentage of respondents choosing No Change and formal legal structure (Association or Charitable Organisation) as their first preference by Affiliation (Panel B).
Mentions: When ranking the three organizational options in their order of preference, the same number of respondents (66, 29.9%) selected No Change and Association as their first preferred option for the future organizational structure of MGMH, while 89 (42.2%) selected Charitable Organisation as their first preferred option (Table 2). Less than a third of respondents preferred that the future organizational structure of MGMH should remain unchanged – a loose grouping of interested individuals and institutions around a public website. More than two thirds (70.1%) preferred that a formal legal organisational structure be developed, with 60% of this group preferring a Charitable Organisation and 40% preferring an Association. There were no statistically significant differences in the rankings across the World Bank country categories and primary affiliation groups (Figure 3, Panel A and B).

Bottom Line: The response rate (7%) was too small and too skewed (predominantly academics and health professionals from high income countries) to allow any clear conclusions to be drawn from the survey.The global mental health field and MGMH are in a time of transition.The move to the new secretariat is an opportunity for systematic consideration of the organisational structure and governance arrangements that will best serve the goals of MGMH.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Global and Cultural Mental Health Unit, Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia ; Movement for Global Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia.

ABSTRACT

Background: The Movement for Global Mental Health (MGMH), established in 2008, is in a period of transition, as is the field of global mental health. The transfer of Secretariat functions from the Centre for International Mental Health to the Public Health Foundation of India was a suitable time to reflect on the goals of MGMH and on the form of organisational structure that would best serve the organisation in its efforts to achieve its goals.

Methods: An online survey was sent to the 4,000 registered members of MGMH seeking the views of the membership on both the goals of MGMH and on the preferred form of organisational structure.

Results: There was near unanimous (95%) agreement with the MGMH goals as stated at the time of the survey. The current form of organisation of MGMH, a loose network of individuals and organisations registered through the MGMH website, was the least preferred (29.9%) form of organisation for the future of MGMH. More than two thirds (70.1%) of respondents would prefer a formal legal structure, with 60% of this group favouring a Charitable Organisation structure and 40% preferring an international Association structure.

Discussion: The response rate (7%) was too small and too skewed (predominantly academics and health professionals from high income countries) to allow any clear conclusions to be drawn from the survey. However, both the fact that responses were too few and skewed and the preferences expressed by respondents raise issues for careful consideration by the current MGMH Secretariat.

Conclusions: The global mental health field and MGMH are in a time of transition. The move to the new secretariat is an opportunity for systematic consideration of the organisational structure and governance arrangements that will best serve the goals of MGMH.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus