Geopsychiatry and geography: A response

Abstract

Background: This contribution responds to three articles (we refer to all three as ‘editorials’) concerning something called ‘geopsychiatry’. Aims: To evaluate claims made in these editorials for ‘geopsychiatry’ as a new field of inquiry at the interface between geography and psychiatry. Method: Close critical reading of two editorials in the International Journal of Social Psychiatry – entitled ‘Geographical determinants of mental health’ and ‘Political determinants of mental health’ – and one in the International Review of Psychiatry – entitled ‘What is geopsychiatry?’ Results: While this geopsychiatry initiative is to be applauded, disquiet can be expressed about the almost complete neglect of a pre-existing domain of inquiry – ‘mental health geography’ or ‘the geography of mental health’ – that has long been researched by academic geographers and cognate scholars. Key trajectories in this field can be identified and related to the proposed foci for geopsychiatry. Conclusions: The hope is voiced that future developments in geopsychiatry will proceed in dialogue with the literature and practitioners of mental health geography.