The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries ( N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subjective status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self‐esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.

Background: The mental healthcare treatment gap (mhcGAP) in adult populations has been substantiated across Europe. This study formed part of MentALLY, a research project funded by the European Commission, which aimed to gather qualitative empirical evidence to support the provision of European mental healthcare that provides effective treatment to all adults who need it. Methods: Seven focus groups were conducted with 49 health professionals (HPs), including psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, general practitioners, and psychiatric nurses who worked in health services in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The focus group discussions centered on the barriers and facilitators to providing quality care to people with mild, medium, and severe mental health problems. Analyses included deductively and inductively driven coding procedures. Crosscountry consensus was obtained by summarizing findings in the form of a fact sheet which was shared for triangulation by all the MentALLY partners. Results: The results converged into two overarching themes: (1) Minding the treatment gap: the availability and accessibility of Mental Health Services (MHS). The mhcGAP gap identified is composed of different elements that constitute the barriers to care, including bridging divides in care provision, obstacles in facilitating access via referrals and creating a collaborative 'chain of care'. (2) Making therapeutic practice relevant by providing a broad-spectrum of integrated and comprehensive services that value person-centered care comprised of authenticity, flexibility and congruence. Conclusions: The mhcGAP is comprised of the following barriers: a lack of funding, insufficient capacity of human resources, inaccessibility to comprehensive services and a lack of availability of relevant treatments. The facilitators to the provision of MHC include using collaborative models of primary, secondary and prevention-oriented mental healthcare. Teamwork in providing care was considered to be a more effective and efficient use of resources. HPs believe that the use of e-mental health and emerging digital technologies can enhance care provision. Facilitating access to a relevant continuum of community-based care that is responsive coordinated and in line with people's needs throughout their lives is an essential aspect of optimal care provision.

This paper provides useful information on assessing patient satisfaction in Greek public hospitals which could be used elsewhere.

In this study, we aim to contribute to the field of critical health communication research by examining how notions of mental health and illness are discursively constructed in newspapers and magazines in six European countries and how these constructions relate to specific understandings of mental health literacy. Using the method of cluster-agon analysis, we identified four terminological clusters in our data, in which mental health/illness is conceptualized as “dangerous,” “a matter of lifestyle,” “a unique story and experience,” and “socially situated.” We furthermore found that we cannot unambiguously assume that biopsychiatric discourses or discourses aimed at empathy and understanding are either exclusively stigmatizing or exclusively empowering and normalizing. We consequently call for a critical conception of mental health literacy arguing that all mental health news socializes its audience in specific understandings of and attitudes toward mental health (knowledge) and that discourses on mental health/illness can work differently in varying contexts.