Skip to main content

Translation of the World Mental Health Survey Data to Policies: An Exploratory Study of Stakeholders’ Perceptions of How Epidemiologic Data Can Be Utilized for Policy in the Field of Mental Health


The World Mental Health Survey Consortium, a World Health Organization and Harvard University collaboration, totaling 28 countries participated in a uniform randomized general population survey, making use of translated versions of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview. One of the major purposes of the survey was to help inform policy decision makers regarding mental health. However many obstacles prevent the direct translation of survey data to policies. We report on an investigation of the mechanisms involved in the transformation of survey data into mental health policies. After conducting 11 interviews of individuals representing 12 countries that participated in the survey, we found that although governments did take an active role in the conduct of the survey, this did not necessarily translate into direct policy changes. A number of factors were noted to influence the adoption and implementation of mental health policy changes from the survey data: the establishment of links between the research group and policy-makers; the identification of costs of mental disorder; definition of clear solutions; and lastly the generation of political will. The range of countries included in this investigation has enabled comparisons in the use of evidence to influence policies in different contexts. Gaining an understanding of why some countries were successful and why others struggled in transforming survey results to policies may help to inform researchers of translational issues of research to mental health policies in the future.


  1. 1.

    Kessler R, Ustun B. The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2004;13:93–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Robins LN, Wing J, Wittchen HU, Helzer JE, Babor TF, et al. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview. An epidemiologic Instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems and in different cultures. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:1069–77.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kessler RC, Angermeyer M, Anthony JC, DE Graff R, Demyttenaere K, et al. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry. 2007;6:168–76.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Nutley SM, Webb J. Evidence and the policy process. In Davies HTO, Nutley SM, Smith PC, (editors). What Works: Evidence Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Bristol: The Policy Press; 2000. p.13–41.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bridgman P, Davies G. Australian Policy Handbook. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lindblom CE. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Rev. 1959;19:79–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Parsons DW. Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Weiss CH. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Rev. 1979;39:426–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hanney SR, Gonzalez-Block MA, Buxton MJ, Kogan M. The utilisation of health research in policy-making: concepts, examples and methods of assessment. Health Res Policy Syst. 2003;1:1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    World Health Organization. Health Research Systems Analysis (HRSA) Initiative. Available from URL: (Accessed 12 March 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Choi BC, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, et al. Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:632–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bowen S, Zwi AB. Pathways to “evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Med. 2005;2:600–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dobrow MJ, Goel V, Upshur RE. Evidence-based health policy: context and utilization. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:207–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Black D, Morris J, Smith C. Inequalities in Health: Report of a Research Working Group. Department of Health and Social Security. London: Stationary Office; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, Noonan R, Lubell K, et al. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:171–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    European Policy Information Research for Mental Disorders (EPREMED) Available from URL: (Accessed 12 March 2013).

  17. 17.

    Kovess-Masfety V, Alonso J, Brugha TS, Angermeyer MC, Haro JM, Sevilla-Dedieu C. Differences in lifetime use of services for mental health problems in six European countries. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58:213–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    The World Mental Health Survey Initiative. Harvard School of Medicine. Available from URL: (Accessed 12 March 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Briot M. Rapport sur les bon usage des medicaments psychotropes. Assemblée Nationale, Office Parlementaire d’Évaluation des Politiques de Santé; 2006. [In French] Available from URL: (Accessed 10 April 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Australian Gorvernment, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The burden of disease and injury in Australia. AIHM; 1996 and 2003. Available from URL: (Accessed 12 March 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: summary of results, 2007. Australian Bureau of Statistics; 23 October 2008, last updated 25 June 2009. Available from URL: (Accessed 12 March 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Hilton MF, Scuffham PA, Vecchio N, Whiteford HA. Using the interaction of mental health symptoms and treatments status to estimate lost employee productivity. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2010;44:151–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Council of Australian Governments. National Action Plan for Mental Health 2006–2011. Standing Council on Health: May 2012. Available from URL: (Accessed 3 April 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Alarcón RD, Aguilar-Gaxiola SA. Mental health policy developments in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78:483–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Posada-Villa JA, Aguilar-Gaxiola SA, Magana CG, Gomez LC. Prevalence of mental disorders and use of services: preliminary results from the National Study of Mental Health Colombia, 2003. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2004;33:241–62. [In Spanish]

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Aviram U, Ginath Y, Roe D. Mental health reforms in Europe: Israel’s rehabilitation in the community of persons with mental disabilities law: challenges and opportunities. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63:110–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Ferry F, Bolton D, Bunting B, O’Niell S, Murphy S. The experience and psychological impact of ‘Troubles’ related trauma in Northern Ireland: a review. Irish J Psychol. 2010;31:95–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Clark HW, Power AK, Le Fauve CE, Lopez EI. Policy and practice implications of epidemiological surveys on co-occurring mental and substance use disorders. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008;34:3–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Albert MA, Fretheim A, Maïga D. Factors influencing the utilization of research findings by health policy-makers in a developing country: the selection of Mali’s essential medicines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2007;5:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York, NY: HarperCollinsCollege; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren Weinberg MPH.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weinberg, L., Whiteford, H., de Almeida, J.C. et al. Translation of the World Mental Health Survey Data to Policies: An Exploratory Study of Stakeholders’ Perceptions of How Epidemiologic Data Can Be Utilized for Policy in the Field of Mental Health. Public Health Rev 34, 4 (2012).

Download citation

Key Words

  • World Mental Health Initiative
  • mental health
  • epidemiology of mental health
  • mental health policies