Introduction
Psychotherapy is an essential phenomenon in the modern world because numerous people are suffering from mental health issues. That is why medical professionals should provide such individuals with appropriate care to help them achieve positive outcomes. However, current practice shows that there appear significant challenges when it comes to delivering care. It relates to the fact that numerous factors prevent patients from utilizing health services, and these factors include race, gender, and other personal peculiarities. Among these phenomena, socioeconomic status (SES) of patients is of crucial concern because it contributes to the fact that numerous individuals are left without access to psychotherapy.
The situation above is a central topic of the article by Epping, Muschik, and Geyer (2017) and the work by Villatoro, Mays, Ponce, and Aneshensel (2018). Thus, the purpose of the present study is to review the two pieces of research and analyze how they address the topic under consideration. That is why it is necessary to read these peer-reviewed articles and comment on their content. The method above means that it is essential to use an appropriate design. Thus, the given study will focus on how the articles discuss the problem, review the literature used, evaluate the methods of these works, present overall expression, and generate conclusions. As for the findings, they state that the articles present useful theoretical information that can positively influence psychotherapy practice.
Evaluating the Problem Discussed
The two articles under critique address the problem and describe it clearly. On the one hand, Villatoro et al. (2018) stipulate that there are differences in mental health services utilization according to social status, race, and gender of patients. The researchers state that the variations above result in the fact that some individuals do not have access to psychotherapy even if they have severe mental disorders. Consequently, the authors introduce the topic understandably, and they support each idea above with credible sources, which eliminates any possible doubts concerning the relevance of the information presented.
On the other hand, the work by Epping et al. (2017) begins by describing the fact that a significant part of research analyzes how and why disease occurs. At the same time, little attention is drawn to whether there are any inequalities in the utilization of mental health services. Thus, the authors explain the direction of their research clearly and are going to investigate the problem within the German context. Here, one should also emphasize that these scientists use numerous studies on the given subject to support their ideas and create the feeling that the article is based on reliable data.
Evaluating the Literature Reviewed
As has been mentioned above, the two articles focus on reliable and credible sources. However, it is necessary to comment on them in detail to determine whether the studies have a clear theoretical framework. Thus, it is possible to say that Villatoro et al. (2018) have cited a sufficient number of sources, including more than 80 books and scholarly articles. This list does not have any pieces of literature that are irrelevant to the study. Furthermore, the authors draw appropriate attention to various sources, which means that there is no bias in presenting the references. At the same time, it is a weakness of the work by Villatoro et al. (2018) that it cites a few outdated sources that were published in the late 20th century.
As for the article by Epping et al. (2017), its reference list includes 30 entries that also include a few outdated sources. All these books and journal entries introduce relevant information because they address numerous topics reviewed by Epping et al. (2017). In addition to that, it is impossible to mention that the authors draw inappropriate attention to some ideas. It so because they use one or two sources to support every notion that they describe. Consequently, the information above demonstrates that the two articles are based on robust theoretical frameworks, which strengthens the credibility of the data presented.
Evaluating the Methods
The study by Villatoro et al. (2018) implies a relatively easy research process that is described in detail. It is so because the researchers focused on individuals who had participated in three epidemiological studies and interviewed them with the help of previously developed questionnaires. As a result, any reader can duplicate the given research process in case of necessity. This method seems to be valid for the given study because interviews of respondents are useful to obtain the required data.
However, it is necessary to consider the fact that this method can imply bias because some individuals can improperly evaluate the causes of their poor access to psychotherapy. Here, this risk is overcome by the extensive sample that includes 14,906 people Villatoro et al. (2018, p. 8). The respondents are of different races, ages, and social statuses, which contributes to achieving impartial results that reflect the current situation in the health care industry.
At the same time, the article by Epping et al. (2017) follows a similar method, and the researchers analyze information from an anonymized dataset. They determine whether there is any correlation between an SES of a person and their mental health. Consequently, every reader can duplicate this research process if necessary. The given article deals with 746,963 respondents, but the most significant attention is drawn to 10,711 psychotherapy patients, including 3,066 men and 7,645 women (Epping et al., 2017, p. 4). Age, income, occupational, and educational varieties are preserved to eliminate the risk of bias and reach impartial results.
Presenting Overall Impression
The two articles under consideration are said to give useful theoretical information that can be further applied in practice. On the one hand, Villatoro et al. (2018) present guidance for individuals on how to identify mental disorders and what to do with them.
Furthermore, the authors stipulate that their conclusions demonstrate the need to improve mental health care utilization in the United States. Thus, the article describes the necessity to develop and implement interventions to increase psychotherapy access among representatives of low SES groups. Consequently, the work by Villatoro et al. (2018) is a basis for responsible individuals to address the issue practically. On the other hand, Epping et al. (2017) also demonstrate that there are some problems with psychotherapy access. The authors insist on the fact that their work should be the guidance for psychotherapists who need to draw specific attention to patients with a low SES and provide them with decent care.
Even though the conclusions above are significant and refer to the essential topic, the articles are written understandably. It refers to the fact that these scholars use simple language to describe even the most complicated phenomena. Furthermore, the visuals are useful in the given pieces of research because they make it easier for readers to understand the ideas expressed. In addition to the fact that the articles are appropriately structured, the tables and charts are useful for readers to comprehend the distribution of respondents and identify any tendencies.
Conclusion
The study by Villatoro et al. (2018) determines how the rates of mental health services utilization depend on individual peculiarities of patients. The authors have reviewed numerous credible sources to create a trustworthy and reliable theoretical framework for their research. To achieve the necessary results, these scientists have analyzed a few epidemiological surveys to select the sample that is necessary for their study. This sample is relatively extensive, and it includes representatives of various racial, gender, age, and socioeconomic groups. Consequently, Villatoro et al. (2018) state that it is necessary to influence the health care industry in the United States to increase access to therapy. As for the future of this research, it can focus on specific steps that can improve mental health services utilization rates in the US.
At the same time, Epping et al. (2017) draw attention to any regularities between an SES of a patient and the utilization of mental health services. The authors have reviewed a sufficient number of reliable sources and analyzed an extensive sample to conclude that representatives of low SES groups suffer from inadequate access to therapy. This article stipulates that the problem can be addressed if psychotherapists draw more attention to the given group of patients. Further research on this subject can refer to covering a different country and developing policy measures to increase psychotherapy access rates. Consequently, the information above stipulates that the two articles under consideration are essential pieces of research that have the potential to improve the theory and practice of the health care industry.
References
Epping, J., Muschik, D., & Geyer, S. (2017). Social inequalities in the utilization of outpatient psychotherapy: Analyses of registry data from German statutory health insurance. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16, 1-8.
Villatoro, A. P., Mays, V. M., Ponce, N. A., & Aneshensel, C. S. (2018). Perceived need for mental health care: The intersection of race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. Society and Mental Health, 8(1), 1-24.