City Research Online

The (Mis)appropriation of HIV/AIDS advocacy strategies in Global Mental Health: towards a more nuanced approach

Howell, A., Mills, C. & Rushton, S. (2017). The (Mis)appropriation of HIV/AIDS advocacy strategies in Global Mental Health: towards a more nuanced approach. Globalization and Health, 13(1), 44. doi: 10.1186/s12992-017-0263-3


Background: Mental health is increasingly finding a place on global health and international development agendas. Advocates for Global Mental Health (GMH), and international organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Bank, argue that treatments available in high-income countries should also be made available in low- and middle-income countries. Such arguments are often made by comparing mental health to infectious diseases, including the relative disease and economic burdens they impose, and pointing to the applicability of the right to access treatment for mental health, not only infectious diseases. HIV/AIDS advocacy in particular has been held up by GMH advocates as offering an appropriate strategy for generating global commitment.

Discussion: There is a need to assess how health issues are framed not only in relation to social goods outside of health (such as human rights, security or development), but also in relation to other health or disease models, and how health policy and practice is shaped as a result. The article debates the merits and consequences of likening mental health to HIV/AIDS, and identifies four major problems with the model for GMH advocacy being developed through these analogies: 1. An inappropriately universalizing global approach to context-specific problems; 2. A conception of human rights that focuses on the right to access treatment at the expense of the right to refuse it; 3. A tendency to treat poverty as a psychiatric issue, rather than recognizing that mental distress can be the result of poverty and other forms of inequality; 4. The prioritization of destigmatization of disease over social justice models.

Conclusion: There are significant problems with the wholesale adoption of an (often simplified) version of HIV/AIDS advocacy as a model for GMH. Yet critical engagement with the important and nuanced differences between HIV/AIDS and mental health may nevertheless point to some possibilities for productive engagement and cross-fertilisation between advocates, activists and scholars in both fields.

Publication Type: Article
Additional Information: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Publisher Keywords: Global mental health, HIV/AIDS, International development, Global public health policy, Human rights, Medicalization
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
Departments: School of Health & Psychological Sciences > Healthcare Services Research & Management
Text - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (404kB) | Preview



Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics

Actions (login required)

Admin Login Admin Login