Emotional distress has been rising since before the COVID-19 pandemic and the public is told that depression is a major public health problem. For example, in 2017 depressive disorders were ranked as the third leading cause of “years lost to disability” and the World Health Organization now ranks depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. Although critical appraisals of the epidemiological data raise questions about the accuracy of population-based depression estimates, the dominance of the medical model and the marketing of psychotropics as “magic bullets,” have contributed to a dramatic rise in the prescription of psychiatric drugs. Unfortunately, the pharmaceutical industry’s influence on psychiatric research and practice has resulted in over-estimates of the effectiveness of psychotropic medications and an under-reporting of harms. This is because the principles that govern commercial entities are incongruent with the principles that guide public health research and interventions. In order to conduct mental health research and develop interventions that are in the public’s best interest, we need non-reductionist epistemological and empirical approaches that incorporate a biopsychosocial perspective. Taking depression as a case example, we argue that the socio-political factors associated with emotional distress must be identified and addressed. We describe the harms of industry influence on mental health research and show how the emphasis on “scaling up” the diagnosis and treatment of depression is an insufficient response from a public health perspective. Solutions for reform are offered.

Introduction: The Chinese government has made significant strides in addressing the needs of individuals affected by rare diseases in recent years. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of national rare disease policies in China from 2009 to 2022, using a mixed-methods approach.

Methods: A two-dimensional analytical framework, which includes policy tools and policy themes, is introduced to analyze the rare disease policies comprehensively. Drawing on the policy tools theory proposed by Rothwell and Zegveld, this paper evaluates the tools used in rare disease policies. Co-word analyses and network analyses are employed to identify key themes in rare disease policies and collaboration among government departments.

Results: The rare disease policy landscape in China is undergoing rapid growth, with an increasing number of government departments involved in policy formulation. However, further collaboration between departments is needed to strengthen these policies. Environment-based and supply-based tools are preferred in rare disease policies. The policy themes can be grouped into four categories: (1) Registration, Approval and Supply of Rare Disease Drugs, (2) Construction of Diagnosis and Treatment System for Rare Diseases, (3) Development and Genericization of Rare Disease Drugs, and (4) Social Security for Patients with Rare Diseases.

Discussion: The study provides valuable insights into the current state of rare disease policies in China and offers suggestions for policy improvement. The results show that the Chinese government has made efforts to address the needs of individuals affected by rare diseases, but there is still room for improvement. The collaboration between government departments needs to be strengthened to achieve better rare disease policies. The findings of this study have implications for other countries with similar healthcare systems and can contribute to a better understanding of the impact of rare disease policies on public health.