Dataset Information

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence-policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English.

Results

From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out 'agenda-setting', we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting.

Conclusion

Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.

SUBMITTER: Votruba N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6106735 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundTask-sharing is a promising strategy to expand mental healthcare in low-resource settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Research on how to best implement task-sharing mental health interventions, however, is hampered by an incomplete understanding of the barriers and facilitators to their implementation. This review aims to systematically identify implementation barriers and facilitators in evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions using an implementation science lens, organizing factors across a novel, integrated implementation science framework.MethodsPubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Embase were used to identify English-language, peer-reviewed studies using search terms for three categories: "mental health," "task-sharing," and "LMIC." Articles were included if they: focused on mental disorders as the main outcome(s); included a task-sharing intervention using or based on an evidence-based practice; were implemented in an LMIC setting; and included assessment or data-supported analysis of barriers and facilitators. An initial conceptual model and coding framework derived from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework was developed and iteratively refined to create an integrated conceptual framework, the Barriers and Facilitators in Implementation of Task-Sharing Mental Health Interventions (BeFITS-MH), which specifies 37 constructs across eight domains: (I) client characteristics, (II) provider characteristics, (III) family and community factors, (IV) organizational characteristics, (V) societal factors, (VI) mental health system factors, (VII) intervention characteristics, and (VIII) stigma.ResultsOf the 26,935 articles screened (title and abstract), 192 articles underwent full-text review, yielding 37 articles representing 28 unique intervention studies that met the inclusion criteria. The most prevalent facilitators occur in domains that are more amenable to adaptation (i.e., the intervention and provider characteristics domains), while salient barriers occur in domains that are more challenging to modulate or intervene on-these include constructs in the client characteristics as well as the broader societal and structural levels of influence (i.e., the organizational, mental health system domains). Other notable trends include constructs in the family and community domains occurring as barriers and as facilitators roughly equally, and stigma constructs acting exclusively as barriers.ConclusionsUsing the BeFITS-MH model we developed based on implementation science frameworks, this systematic review provides a comprehensive identification and organization of barriers and facilitators to evidence-based task-sharing mental health interventions in LMICs. These findings have important implications for ongoing and future implementation of this critically needed intervention strategy, including the promise of leveraging task-sharing intervention characteristics as sites of continued innovation, the importance of but relative lack of engagement with constructs in macro-level domains (e.g., organizational characteristics, stigma), and the need for more delineation of strategies for task-sharing mental health interventions that researchers and implementers can employ to enhance implementation in and across levels.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020161357.

Project description:Background: Child and adolescent mental health (CAMH) policy is essential for the rational development of mental health systems for children and adolescents. However, there is a universal lack of CAMH policy, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Therefore, this review aims to identify challenges and lessons for LMICs to develop and implement CAMH policy. Methods: PubMed (1781-), MEDLINE (1950-), EMBASE (1966-), and PsycINFO (1895-) were searched from inception to December 31, 2018, for publications on CAMH policy development and/or implementation. Abstracts and main texts of articles were double screened, and extracted data were analyzed through thematic synthesis. Results: A total of 31 publications were included through the systematic review. Six major challenges were identified for CAMH policy in LMICs: (i) poor public awareness and low political willingness; (ii) stigma against mental disorders; (iii) biased culture values toward children, adolescents and CAMH, from developmental nihilism to medicalization; (iv) the lack of CAMH data and evidence, from service statistics to program evaluation; (v) the shortage of CAMH resources, including human resources, service facilities, and funding; and (vi) unintended consequence of international support, including reducing local responsibilities, planning fragmentation, and unsustainability. Six lessons to overcome challenges were summarized: (i) rethinking the concept of CAMH, (ii) encouraging a stand-alone CAMH policy and budget, (iii) involving stakeholders, (iv) reinforcing the role of research and researchers in policy process, (v) innovating the usage of human and service resources, and (vi) maximizing the positive influence of international organizations and non-governmental organizations. Conclusion: Many LMICs are still facing various challenges for their CAMH policy development and implementation. To overcome the challenges, great and long-term efforts are needed, which include great determination of from domestic and global agents, multidisciplinary innovations, and collaboration and coordination from different sectors.

Project description:In high-income countries, group antenatal care (ANC) offers an alternative to individual care and is associated with improved attendance, client satisfaction, and health outcomes for pregnant women and newborns. In low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings, this model could be adapted to address low antenatal care uptake and improve quality. However, evidence on key attributes of a group care model for low-resource settings remains scant. We conducted a systematic review of the published literature on models of group antenatal care in LMICs to identify attributes that may increase the relevance, acceptability and effectiveness of group ANC in such settings. We systematically searched five databases and conducted hand and reference searches. We also conducted key informant interviews with researchers and program implementers who have introduced group antenatal care models in LMICs. Using a pre-defined evidence summary template, we extracted evidence on key attributes-like session content and frequency, and group composition and organization-of group care models introduced across LMIC settings. Our systematic literature review identified nine unique descriptions of group antenatal care models. We supplemented this information with evidence from 10 key informant interviews. We synthesized evidence from these 19 data sources to identify attributes of group care models for pregnant women that appeared consistently across all of them. We considered these components that are fundamental to the delivery of group antenatal care. We also identified attributes that need to be tailored to the context in which they are implemented to meet local standards for comprehensive ANC, for example, the number of sessions and the session content. We compiled these attributes to codify a composite "generic" model of group antenatal care for adaptation and implementation in LMIC settings. With this combination of standard and flexible components, group antenatal care, a service delivery alternative that has been successfully introduced and implemented in high-income country settings, can be adapted for improving provision and experiences of care for pregnant women in LMIC. Any conclusions about the benefits of this model for women, babies, and health systems in LMICs, however, must be based on robust evaluations of group antenatal care programs in those settings.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing recognition of the importance of menstruation in achieving health, education, and gender equality for all. New policies in high income countries (HICs) have responded to anecdotal evidence that many struggle to meet their menstrual health needs. Qualitative research has explored lived experiences of menstruating in HICs and can contribute to designing intervention approaches. To inform the growing policy attention to support people who menstruate, here we review and synthesise the existing research.Methods and findingsPrimary, qualitative studies capturing experiences of menstruation in HICs were eligible for inclusion. Systematic database and hand searching identified 11485 records. Following screening and quality appraisal using the EPPI-Centre checklist, 104 studies (120 publications) detailing the menstrual experiences of over 3800 individuals across sixteen countries were included. We used the integrated model of menstrual experiences developed from studies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as a starting framework and deductively and inductively identified antecedents contributing to menstrual experiences; menstrual experiences themselves and impacts of menstrual experiences. Included studies described consistent themes and relationships that fit well with the LMIC integrated model, with modifications to themes and model pathways identified through our analysis. The socio-cultural context heavily shaped menstrual experiences, manifesting in strict behavioural expectations to conceal menstruation and limiting the provision of menstrual materials. Resource limitations contributed to negative experiences, where dissatisfaction with menstrual practices and management environments were expressed along with feelings of disgust if participants felt they failed to manage their menstruation in a discrete, hygienic way. Physical menstrual factors such as pain were commonly associated with negative experiences, with mixed experiences of healthcare reported. Across studies participants described negative impacts of their menstrual experience including increased mental burden and detrimental impacts on participation and personal relationships. Positive experiences were more rarely reported, although relationships between cis-women were sometimes strengthened by shared experiences of menstrual bleeding. Included studies reflected a broad range of disciplines and epistemologies. Many aimed to understand the constructed meanings of menstruation, but few were explicitly designed to inform policy or practice. Few studies focused on socioeconomically disadvantaged groups relevant to new policy efforts.ConclusionsWe developed an integrated model of menstrual experience in HICs which can be used to inform research, policy and practice decisions by emphasising the pathways through which positive and negative menstrual experiences manifest.Review protocol registrationThe review protocol registration is PROSPERO: CRD42019157618.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations. METHODS:A systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools. RESULTS:153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS:Of the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed.