Professor Patrick McGorry from the University of Melbourne, argues that “Mental illnesses are the chronic diseases of young people” while also highlighting that three quarters of mental health conditions develop before the age of 25.
Therefore he believes that a dedicated youth mental health system “could reduce the long term financial and human costs.” McGorry refers to a period of ‘emerging adulthood’, which necessitates different forms of treatment from those provided to children and older adults. He is concerned that the focus of child psychiatry on younger children leaves those aged between 15 and 25 with a “system (at) its weakest where it needs to be strongest.” New so-called ‘transition zones’ are advocated by McGorry, which take into account such issues as epidemiological evidence, safety and the preferences of younger people themselves. This may be along the lines of the systems in place for older people. McGorry feels that the development of a subspecialty along these lines would help with securing additional resources and ensuring ‘sustainable progress.’
To read Professor Patricks argument in full visit the BMJ website
However Peter Birleson, from the Royal Children’s Hospital in Australia, takes a different view. He contends that not only would the establishment of a new specialty ‘complicate’ mental health provision, but would also exacerbate the issues associated with transition of patients into adulthood. While Birleson acknowledges the benefits of increased investment earlier in the lives of patients, he believes that this are “most sensibly provided through universal platforms” as opposed to specialist services. Moreover Birleson warns that the development of a youth specialty “risks slowing the rise of evidence based practice.” He goes on to the discuss the problems that arose within a pilot study in Melbourne, whereby 0-14 year olds were treated in hospital and 15-24 year olds were seen by Orygen Youth Health (a division of the organisation Professor McGorry works for). The youth health service utilised different care models and criteria for entry, which leads Birleson to stress that the ‘optimal time for transition’ is 18 years old. He calls for the focus to instead be placed upon improving integration, perhaps through the development of a youth subspecialty within adult services.
To read Peter Birleson’s argument in full visit the BMJ website