{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012600229095074456, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.111888111888112, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Setting mental health priorities: problems and possibilities.

A recent project at the Hastings Center examined the question of priority setting in the provision of mental health services. A central issue was whether those services should be prioritized independently of other health services. The answer to that question was no: they should have full parity. Even so, priority setting can be a complex venture. At the heart of any such effort will be the relationship between empirical evidence on treatment outcomes and efficacy and the political and ethical interests that legitimately bear on interpreting and using that evidence. An argument is made that a priority should be given those whose suffering and inability to function in ordinary life is most pronounced, even if the available treatment for them is comparatively less efficacious than for other conditions.