Mental Health WTO

The so-called "Mental Health WTO" is essentially a set of universal interaction guidelines that adapt to the public's mental health needs - the core is to tear down the invisible barriers between different cognitive groups, professional schools, and service supply and demand parties, just like the WTO's global trade rules, and use the three underlying principles of "non-discrimination, information transparency, and mutual benefit" to solve the common pain points in the current mental health field of "schools competing against each other, supply and demand mismatch, and users being cut off by information gaps."

Last week I went to a local salon for fellow counselors. As soon as I sat down, I heard Teacher Li, who has been doing psychoanalysis for 20 years, complain that young visitors today are too eager for quick success. As soon as I sat down, I asked, "Can I get better after three consultations for my insomnia?" I couldn't calm down to explore at all. As soon as he finished speaking, the young counselor doing CBT next to him said, "You can't blame the visitor. You have talked to someone about childhood trauma ten times, but the person's insomnia still hasn't improved. Who else is not worried? ”The smell of gunpowder was already strong enough, but an experienced bipolar disorder person sitting in the corner and an organizer of the user community rolled his eyes: "You are arguing, can you first explain clearly what can be solved in each consultation, can I get a refund if it is ineffective, and can I stop taking the medicine I am taking?" Last month, I received a request from a user and spent 8,000 yuan on a pseudo-consultant with a "certified by the Chinese Academy of Sciences" sign. They said that taking medicine meant she was "dependent on the outside world," so they forced her to stop taking the medicine, and she ended up going directly to the emergency room. ”

In fact, I have seen this scene more than once. Academic researchers have long mentioned in their papers that "standard fragmentation" in the field of domestic mental health is the core contradiction. Just like global trade before the birth of the WTO, each country has its own tariff rules and product standards. Ordinary consumers cannot tell who is compliant and who is not, and the probability of falling into a trap is naturally high. But front-line clinical counselors also have their own grievances. A family therapist I know told me that there are no standardized solutions to many psychological problems. Some visitors are treated with the "slow therapy" of psychoanalysis. Talking about their childhood can help her relieve the burden of decades. Some visitors just ask for CBT's emotional tool kit, which can be used after learning it. If we impose unified service standards, it will block many personalized needs, and it will be the users who suffer in the end.

To put it bluntly, the essence of this set of "mental health WTO" rules is not to turn all consultants into "assembly line workers" carved out of the same mold, nor is it to make everyone regulate their emotions in the same way, more like how we usually order milk tea. Code mark: It’s okay to sell hand-brewed Hong Kong-style milk tea, and it’s no problem to sell fruit tea. The most important thing is that you have to clearly state the ingredient list, price, and whether the sweetness and ice level can be adjusted. You can’t sell powder-brewed tea under the name of “handmade freshly brewed” and charge three times the price. The principle of non-discrimination is not to create a chain of contempt, not to perfunctory the visit just because it is a mild illness, or to shirk the blame if it is a serious illness. ； The principle of transparency is that all service contents, risks, and limitations must be explained in advance, and you cannot be deceptive like a "deified consultant" ； The principle of reciprocity is that consultants earn reasonable money, visit to get matching services, and different schools refer suitable users to each other instead of competing for each other's jobs.

In fact, there are already small circles practicing this set of rules. Seven consultants I know from different schools formed a mutual aid group last year. Before receiving a visit, they would send each other a half-page "adaptation list": what is my area of ​​expertise, what is my school, how many times can I expect initial results, which problems I can't solve will be referred directly, what is the charging standard, and if there is no match in the first 30 minutes, you can waive the bill. They also agreed not to compete for visits from colleagues, and to directly refer users who are suitable for other genres, and not to force people to do areas that they are not good at. After one year, their user satisfaction is nearly 40% higher than the industry average, and the complaint rate is almost zero. Some users even take the initiative to introduce friends around them who are in need, saying, "Don't worry if you go to them, at least you won't be cheated."

Of course there are many voices of opposition. A senior counselor told me that the essence of psychological counseling is "the encounter between people." Too many standardized rules and regulations will destroy the sincerity in the counseling relationship and limit the performance of the counselor. Others say that the cognitive level of ordinary users today is uneven. Even if you put all the information on the table, they will still choose those pseudo-consultants who boast of "curing depression in 7 days" and "hypnosis can cure anxiety once and for all." It is useless even if the rules are set. This is indeed not an alarmist statement. I was browsing Xiaohongshu last week and saw a post that said, “Don’t take psychiatric drugs, rely on meditation to cure depression.” The number of likes was more than ten times higher than that of regular popular science. There were a lot of people in the comment area asking for contact information.

But thinking about it on the other hand, if there are not even the most basic rules, the situation of bad money driving out good money will only become more serious. You can't just withdraw the consumer rights protection law just because some people will buy fake goods, right? Two years ago, I met a sophomore who had just been diagnosed with anxiety. He said that he had been browsing online posts for half a month. One moment he saw someone saying "taking medicine will make you stupid", and the next moment someone said "psychological counseling is a scam". After three months of struggling, he did not dare to see a doctor or a counselor, but his symptoms became worse and worse. In fact, what he wants is not the most authoritative school at all, nor is it a perfect solution, but a clear guide that no one will lie to him: In my current situation, should I go to the hospital to register first or see a consultant first?

The so-called "Mental Health WTO", to put it bluntly, is to put this clear guidance into the hands of everyone in need. There is no need to shout any grand slogans. After all, rules are first practiced in a small circle of three or five people and then gradually spread, right?