Authors
Morgane Gabet, Alexie Kim, Arthur Cailhol, Lara Gautier, Muriel Mac-Seing
Published in
Sante publique (Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France). Volume 38. Issue HS1. Pages 109-122.
Abstract
In a context marked by heightened activity in mental health public policy and increasing challenges for public systems—particularly regarding inequities in access to and quality of services—it becomes essential to evaluate these policies through the lens of health equity. The pilot study presented explores the following question: (How) is equity considered in mental health public policies?Drawing on the EquiFrame framework (2011), which enables a systematic analysis of public policies based on 21 concepts of equity, and using three contrasting Québec policies as case studies, the analysis focuses on: 1) the equity concepts addressed (and their level of quality), 2) the equitydeserving groups mentioned, and 3) the alignment between equity concepts and the equity-seeking groups identified in these policies.
The results show stronger coverage of equity concepts in the strategic-level policy compared to operational-level ones. However, the quality of these concepts—defined by the presence of planned actions or evaluations—remains weak, as does the explicit consideration of equity-deserving groups. This raises questions about the actual political will behind equity-related discourse.
Policies tend to frame mental health interventions as universal, without accounting for the varying capacities of different groups to benefit from them. Yet, such disparities are particularly salient among individuals living with mental health conditions, who often experience multiple intersecting vulnerabilities.
Integrating a health equity perspective into policy evaluation is crucial to ensure that mental health policies do not reproduce—or worsen—existing inequities.
PMID:
42674981
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 01 Sep 2026.
Read full publication at:
Please sign in
to see all details.
Advertisement
Stats
- Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
- Views 3
- Comments 0