Dataset Information

Evaluation of performance and perceived utility of mental healthcare indicators in routine health information systems in five low- and middle-income countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In most low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), routine mental health information is unavailable or unreliable, making monitoring of mental healthcare coverage difficult. This study aims to evaluate a new set of mental health indicators introduced in primary healthcare settings in five LMIC.

Method

A survey was conducted among primary healthcare workers (n = 272) to assess the acceptability and feasibility of eight new indicators monitoring mental healthcare needs, utilisation, quality and payments. Also, primary health facility case records (n = 583) were reviewed by trained research assistants to assess the level of completion (yes/no) for each of the indicators and subsequently the level of correctness of completion (correct/incorrect - with incorrect defined as illogical, missing or illegible information) of the indicators used by health workers. Assessments were conducted within 1 month of the introduction of the indicators, as well as 6-9 months afterwards.

Results

Across both time points and across all indicators, 78% of the measurements of indicators were complete. Among the best performing indicators (diagnosis, severity and treatment), this was significantly higher. With regards to correctness, 87% of all completed indicators were correctly completed. There was a trend towards improvement over time. Health workers' perceptions on feasibility and utility, across sites and over time, indicated a positive attitude in 81% of all measurements.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates high levels of performance and perceived utility for a set of indicators that could ultimately be used to monitor coverage of mental healthcare in primary healthcare settings in LMIC. We recommend that these indicators are incorporated into existing health information systems and adopted within the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme implementation strategy.

Declaration of interest

None.

SUBMITTER: Jordans M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6688458 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of performance and perceived utility of mental healthcare indicators in routine health information systems in five low- and middle-income countries.

Jordans Mark M Chisholm Dan D Semrau Maya M Gurung Dristy D Abdulmalik Jibril J Ahuja Shalini S Mugisha James J Mntambo Ntokozo N Kigozi Fred F Petersen Inge I Shidhaye Rahul R Upadhaya Nawaraj N Lund Crick C Thornicroft Graham G Gureje Oye O

BJPsych open 20190806 5

<h4>Background</h4>In most low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), routine mental health information is unavailable or unreliable, making monitoring of mental healthcare coverage difficult. This study aims to evaluate a new set of mental health indicators introduced in primary healthcare settings in five LMIC.<h4>Method</h4>A survey was conducted among primary healthcare workers (n = 272) to assess the acceptability and feasibility of eight new indicators monitoring mental healthcare needs, uti ...[more]

PMID: 31530320

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRoutine health information systems (RHISs) support resource allocation and management decisions at all levels of the health system, as well as strategy development and policy-making in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although RHIS data represent a rich source of information, such data are currently underused for research purposes, largely due to concerns over data quality. Given that substantial investments have been made in strengthening RHISs in LMICs in recent years, and that there is a growing demand for more real-time data from researchers, this systematic review builds upon the existing literature to summarize the extent to which RHIS data have been used in peer-reviewed research publications.MethodsUsing terms 'routine health information system', 'health information system', or 'health management information system' and a list of LMICs, four electronic peer-review literature databases were searched from inception to February 202,019: PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and EconLit. Articles were assessed for inclusion based on pre-determined eligibility criteria and study characteristics were extracted from included articles using a piloted data extraction form.ResultsWe identified 132 studies that met our inclusion criteria, originating in 37 different countries. Overall, the majority of the studies identified were from Sub-Saharan Africa and were published within the last 5 years. Malaria and maternal health were the most commonly studied health conditions, although a number of other health conditions and health services were also explored.ConclusionsOur study identified an increasing use of RHIS data for research purposes, with many studies applying rigorous study designs and analytic methods to advance program evaluation, monitoring and assessing services, and epidemiological studies in LMICs. RHIS data represent an underused source of data and should be made more available and further embraced by the research community in LMIC health systems.

Project description:BackgroundLive oral rotavirus vaccines (LORVs) have significantly reduced rotavirus hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. However, LORVs are less effective in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Next-generation rotavirus vaccines (NGRVs) may be more effective but require administration by injection or a neonatal oral dose, adding operational complexity. Healthcare providers (HPs) were interviewed to assess rotavirus vaccine preferences and identify delivery issues as part of an NGRV value proposition.ObjectiveDetermine HP vaccine preferences about delivering LORVs compared to injectable (iNGRV) and neonatal oral (oNGRV) NGRVs.Methods64 HPs from Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Peru, and Senegal were interviewed following a mixed-method guide centered on three vaccine comparisons: LORV vs. iNGRV; LORV vs. oNGRV; oNGRV vs. iNGRV. HPs reviewed attributes for each vaccine in the comparisons, then indicated and explained their preference. Additional questions elicited views about co-administering iNGRV+LORV for greater public health impact, a possible iNGRV-DTP-containing combination vaccine, and delivering neonatal doses.ResultsAlmost all HPs preferred oral vaccine options over iNGRV, with many emphasizing an aversion to additional injections. Despite this strong preference, HPs described challenges delivering oral doses. Preferences for LORV vs. oNGRV were split, marked by disparate views on rotavirus disease epidemiology and the safety, need, and feasibility of delivering neonatal vaccines. Although overwhelmingly enthusiastic about an iNGRV-DTP-containing combination option, several HPs had concerns. HP views were divided on the feasibility of co-administering iNGRV+LORV, citing challenges around logistics and caregiver sensitization.ConclusionOur findings provide valuable insights on delivering NGRVs in routine immunization. Despite opposition to injectables, openness to co-administering LORV+iNGRV to improve efficacy suggests future HP support of iNGRV if adequately informed of its advantages. Rationales for LORV vs. oNGRV underscore needs for training on rotavirus epidemiology and stronger service integration. Expressed challenges delivering existing LORVs merit further examination and indicate need for improved delivery.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is a wide variety in prescribing by primary healthcare workers in low-income and middle-income countries. While there is much information available, both online and offline, there is variation in quality and relevance to different settings. Acting on incorrect or out-of-date information can lead to inappropriate prescribing and impact on patient safety. The aim of this review is to systematically review the evidence on how primary healthcare workers obtain information during consultations to prescribe safely and appropriately. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will identify relevant articles by searching electronic databases: Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CABI Global Health (Ovid), WHO global health library, POPLINE, Africa-Wide Information (Ebsco), Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (Ebsco), ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Also, the Health Information For All network will be consulted and evidence databases (TRIP database, Epistemonikos, PDQ Evidence) will be searched. We will hand-search reference lists, run citation searches of included studies and email authors of identified papers. Observational and intervention studies involving primary healthcare workers in low-income and middle-income countries who prescribe and/or dispense medication will be included. The primary outcome is the proportion of healthcare workers obtaining information relevant to consultations from different sources. Secondary outcomes are the change in healthcare provider and patient knowledge or behaviour, adverse outcomes and use of resources. We will exclude studies focusing on secondary care. We anticipate a limited scope for meta-analysis and will provide a narrative overview of findings and tabular summaries of extracted data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:No ethics approval is required. Findings will be disseminated through the Healthcare Information For All network. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42018091088.

Project description:BackgroundRoutine microbiology results are a valuable source of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance data in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) as well as in high-income countries. Different approaches and strategies are used to generate AMR surveillance data.ObjectivesWe aimed to review strategies for AMR surveillance using routine microbiology results in LMICs and to highlight areas that need support to generate high-quality AMR data.SourcesWe searched PubMed for papers that used routine microbiology to describe the epidemiology of AMR and drug-resistant infections in LMICs. We also included papers that, from our perspective, were critical in highlighting the biases and challenges or employed specific strategies to overcome these in reporting AMR surveillance in LMICs.ContentTopics covered included strategies of identifying AMR cases (including case-finding based on isolates from routine diagnostic specimens and case-based surveillance of clinical syndromes), of collecting data (including cohort, point-prevalence survey, and case-control), of sampling AMR cases (including lot quality assurance surveys), and of processing and analysing data for AMR surveillance in LMICs.ImplicationsThe various AMR surveillance strategies warrant a thorough understanding of their limitations and potential biases to ensure maximum utilization and interpretation of local routine microbiology data across time and space. For instance, surveillance using case-finding based on results from clinical diagnostic specimens is relatively easy to implement and sustain in LMIC settings, but the estimates of incidence and proportion of AMR is at risk of biases due to underuse of microbiology. Case-based surveillance of clinical syndromes generates informative statistics that can be translated to clinical practices but needs financial and technical support as well as locally tailored trainings to sustain. Innovative AMR surveillance strategies that can easily be implemented and sustained with minimal costs will be useful for improving AMR data availability and quality in LMICs.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of performance and perceived utility of mental healthcare indicators in routine health information systems in five low- and middle-income countries.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Declaration of interest

Publications

Evaluation of performance and perceived utility of mental healthcare indicators in routine health information systems in five low- and middle-income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets