Dataset Information

Collaborative Care for Mental Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A WHO Health Systems Framework Assessment of Three Programs.

ABSTRACT: The collaborative care model is an evidence-based intervention for behavioral and other chronic conditions that has the potential to address the large burden of mental illness globally. Using the World Health Organization Health Systems Framework, the authors present challenges in implementing this model in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and discuss strategies to address these challenges based on experiences with three large-scale programs: an implementation research study in a district-level government hospital in rural Nepal, one clinical trial in 50 primary health centers in rural India, and one study in four diabetes clinics in India. Several strategies can be utilized to address implementation challenges and enhance scalability in LMICs, including mobilizing community resources, engaging in advocacy, and strengthening the overall health care delivery system.

SUBMITTER: Acharya B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5790311 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Collaborative Care for Mental Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A WHO Health Systems Framework Assessment of Three Programs.

Acharya Bibhav B Ekstrand Maria M Rimal Pragya P Ali Mohammed K MK Swar Sikhar S Srinivasan Krishnamachari K Mohan Viswanathan V Unützer Jürgen J Chwastiak Lydia A LA

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) 20170801 9

The collaborative care model is an evidence-based intervention for behavioral and other chronic conditions that has the potential to address the large burden of mental illness globally. Using the World Health Organization Health Systems Framework, the authors present challenges in implementing this model in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and discuss strategies to address these challenges based on experiences with three large-scale programs: an implementation research study in a distric ...[more]

PMID: 28760096

Similar Datasets

Project description:The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n?=?13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research-policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research-policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Secondary schools in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) provide health promotion, preventive, and early intervention services. Nevertheless, literature indicates that the modules of these services are either adapted or modified from existing mental health programs in developed countries. The literature also highlights the provision of non-comprehensive services (mental health promotion, prevention, and early intervention), in LMICs. These findings inform the need for undertaking this systematic literature review. The aim of this review was thus to identify the modules of school-based mental health programs (SBMHP) that have been implemented in LMICs to guide the development of a culturally sensitive comprehensive mental health program for adolescents in a LMIC country. METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was used to guide this review. The following databases were searched in September 2018, to identify the relevant literature: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and ERIC. The search was conducted by the first author and reviewed by the authors. RESULTS:Following the screening process, a total of 11 papers were identified and reviewed for quality. The systematic review highlighted that the mental health programs provided in schools included: an introduction module, a communication and relationship module, a psychoeducation module, a cognitive skills module, a behavioral skills module, establishing social networks for recovery and help seeking behavioral activities and a summary/conclusion module. CONCLUSION:This review sheds light on the characteristics of the programs in LMICs. Two programs were found to be universal in nature. Five programs were directed at key risk factors or at-risk groups, and four were early intervention programs. The review also revealed that only one program out of the 11 programs included modules for parents. The synthesis indicated that all the identified programs were adapted or modified from existing programs. The dearth of comprehensive programs in LMICs was also revealed. Lastly, the review revealed seven modules that can be useful for developing a SBMHP.

Project description:BackgroundConducting health impact assessments (HIAs) is a growing practice in various organizations and countries, yet scholarly interest in HIAs has primarily focused on the synergies between exposure and health outcomes. This limits our understanding of what factors influence HIAs and the uptake of their outcomes. This paper presents a framework for conducting participatory quantitative HIA (PQHIA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including integrating the outcomes back into society after an HIA is conducted. The study responds to the question: what are the different components of a participatory quantitative model that can influence HIA implementation in LMICs?MethodsTo build the framework, we used a case study from a PQHIA fieldwork model developed in Port Louis (Mauritius). To explore thinking on the participatory components of the framework, we extract and analyze data from ethnographic material including fieldnotes, interviews, focus group discussions and feedback exercises with 14 stakeholders from the same case study. We confirm the validity of the ethnographic data using five quality criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity. We build the PQHIA framework connecting the main HIA steps with factors influencing HIAs.ResultsThe final framework depicts the five standard HIA stages and summarizes participatory activities and outcomes. It also reflects key factors influencing PQHIA practice and uptake of HIA outcomes: costs for participation, HIA knowledge and interest of stakeholders, social responsibility of policymakers, existing policies, data availability, citizen participation, multi-level stakeholder engagement and multisectoral coordination. The framework suggests that factors necessary to complete a participatory HIA are the same needed to re-integrate HIA results back into the society. There are three different areas that can act as facilitators to PQHIAs: good governance, evidence-based policy making, and access to resources.ConclusionsThe framework has several implications for research and practice. It underlines the importance of applying participatory approaches critically while providing a blueprint for methods to engage local stakeholders. Participatory approaches in quantitative HIAs are complex and demand a nuanced understanding of the context. Therefore, the political and cultural contexts in which HIA is conducted will define how the framework is applied. Finally, the framework underlines that participation in HIA does not need to be expensive or time consuming for the assessor or the participant. Yet, participatory quantitative models need to be contextually developed and integrated if they are to provide health benefits and be beneficial for the participants. This integration can be facilitated by investing in opportunities that fuel good governance and evidence-based policy making.

Project description:IntroductionHealth systems responsiveness is a key objective of any health system, yet it is the least studied of all objectives particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. Research on health systems responsiveness highlights its multiple elements, for example, dignity and confidentiality. Little is known, however, about underlying theories of health systems responsiveness, and the mechanisms through which responsiveness works. This realist synthesis contributes to bridging these two knowledge gaps.Methods and analysisIn this realist synthesis, we will use a four-step process, comprising: mapping of theoretical bases, formulation of programme theories, theory refinement and testing of programme theories using literature and empirical data from Ghana and Vietnam. We will include theoretical and conceptual pieces, reviews, empirical studies and grey literature, alongside the primary data. We will explore responsiveness as entailing external and internal interactions within health systems. The search strategy will be purposive and iterative, with continuous screening and refinement of theories. Data extraction will be combined with quality appraisal, using appropriate tools. Each fragment of evidence will be appraised as it is being extracted, for its relevance to the emerging programme theories and methodological rigour. The extracted data pertaining to contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be synthesised to identify patterns and contradictions. Results will be reported using narrative explanations, following established guidance on realist syntheses.Ethics and disseminationEthics approvals for the wider RESPONSE (Improving health systems responsiveness to neglected health needs of vulnerable groups in Ghana and Vietnam) study, of which this review is one part, were obtained from the ethics committees of the following institutions: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (ref: 22981), University of Leeds, School of Medicine (ref: MREC19-051), Ghana Health Service (ref: GHS-ERC 012/03/20) and Hanoi University of Public Health (ref: 020-149/DD-YTCC).We will disseminate results through academic papers, conference presentations and stakeholder workshops in Ghana and Vietnam.Prospero registration numberCRD42020200353. Full record: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020200353.

Dataset Information

Collaborative Care for Mental Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A WHO Health Systems Framework Assessment of Three Programs.

Publications

Collaborative Care for Mental Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A WHO Health Systems Framework Assessment of Three Programs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets