That would be a more accurate claim at least, but that helps me clarify the main & inevitable issue with this graph overall...because yes, it does reflect a cultural emphasis on mental health in some places, but not others at the same time. For I wouldn't say that New Zealanders or Australians place more of a cultural significance on diagnosing disorders than other nations, or that they are naturally more prone to mental disorders or addictions within their populations, but I can say that, historically, these were 'prison colonies' of other nations for centuries and access to alcohol or drugs were not as culturally restrictive as it was elsewhere, which is basically like "hello issues!" The same could be said for the United States, which was also historically used to imprison criminals from Europe, but meanwhile, in other nations, criminals of the same sort were simply eradicated from existence. So is that what this graph reflects? The consequences of how populations have addressed mental health issues over time? Or does it reflect more current cultural standards? Which holds more significance? Is it culture & environment, or more inherent, like genealogical? Truth is, it's all of these things, in part...in very small part...in the midst of many other parts...extremely complicated & ever-changing parts...all of which are too significant alone not to be considered & counted towards any "global" or "universal" claim.

I'd say this is simply an impossible thing to map, but that's just my opinion. This graph, however, is most certainly too flawed to definitively reflect anything beyond...well...those who carried out & participated in the mapping- or in other words, their definition of the issues they've attempted to map.

Given what I know to be true, such a graph is useless without complete context- or in other words, any 'graph' is useless in regards to 'mental health' in a general or global context.