An article in the Huffington Post titled “Why Mental Illness Goes Much Farther Than Research Tells Us” critiques the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey on Mental Health, specifically stating its exclusionary sample is creating a rather convenient picture of mental health in Canada.
As any science student and professional knows, having a representative sample is, you know, kind of important. One of the article’s complaints about this particular sample is it leaves out groups that are particularly prone to more mental health issues, such as those living on reserves and the institutionalized. With this in mind, the results can really only be taken at face value, or at least only generalized to the rest of society — not exactly great validity.
My question is, why might have the Canadian government decided to exclude these particular groups from the sample? Were they simply wishing to get a more realistic view of the “average” Canadian? If this were the case, I would question why we need to ignore vulnerable groups, as they are part of the social ecosystem; excluding these people seems like a blatant disregard of their roles in Canadian society.
Research methods aside, what are the consequences of these statistics? My gut feeling makes me wonder if this is the government’s way of saying, “Hey, look how well we’re doing!” when we’re really not doing that well. If the results favour lower levels of mental health issues, then solutions for these problems may not be as urgent. The smaller the problem, the easier it is to sweep under the carpet.
Anyone working in the mental health field has some sort of awareness about the lack of funding and resources mental health programs receive. In my own experience volunteering in community housing for those with severe mental health issues, I know only too well the poor living conditions and lack of social support these people receive.
The ultimate question: How can we make Canada more mentally healthy?
