Dataset Information

Use of an integrated Atlas of Mental Health Care for evidence informed policy in Catalonia (Spain).

ABSTRACT:

Background

This paper aims to present the Integrated Atlas of Mental Health of Catalonia (2010) focusing on: (a) the importance of using a taxonomy-based coding and standard system of data collection when assessing health services; and (b) its relevance as a tool for evidence-informed policy.

Method

This study maps all the care-related services for people with mental disorders available in Catalonia in 2010, using the 'Description and Evaluation of Services and Directories in Europe for long-term care' (DESDE-LTC). The unit of analysis is the Basic Stable Input of Care (BSIC), which is the minimal organisation unit composed by a set of inputs with temporal stability. We presented data on: (a) availability of BSICs and their capacity; (b) the adequacy of the provision of care, taking into account availability and accessibility; (c) the evolution of BSCIs from 2002 to 2010; and (d) the perceived relevance of Atlas of Mental Health as a tool for evidence-informed policy.

Results

We identified a total of 639 BSICs. A lack of Health services was detected in highly rural areas, although there was moderate availability of Social Services. Overall, more than 80% of the small mental health areas in Catalonia had an adequate core mental health service. Since 2002 the availability of mental health services has increased. Decision makers found the Atlas a useful and relevant tool for evidence informed policy.

Conclusions

Policy makers can use Atlases to detect gaps and inequities in the provision of care for people with mental health needs.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8367369 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious surveys of organizations that support the development of evidence-informed health policies have focused on organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or undertake health technology assessments (HTAs). Only rarely have surveys focused at least in part on units that directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) that are in some way successful or innovative or that support the use of research evidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe drew on many people and organizations around the world, including our project reference group, to generate a list of organizations to survey. We modified a questionnaire that had been developed originally by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) collaboration and adapted one version of the questionnaire for organizations producing CPGs and HTAs, and another for GSUs. We sent the questionnaire by email to 176 organizations and followed up periodically with non-responders by email and telephone.ResultsWe received completed questionnaires from 152 (86%) organizations. More than one-half of the organizations (and particularly HTA agencies) reported that examples from other countries were helpful in establishing their organization. A higher proportion of GSUs than CPG- or HTA-producing organizations involved target users in the selection of topics or the services undertaken. Most organizations have few (five or fewer) full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. More than four-fifths of organizations reported providing panels with or using systematic reviews. GSUs tended to use a wide variety of explicit valuation processes for the research evidence, but none with the frequency that organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both prioritized evidence by its quality. Between one-half and two-thirds of organizations do not collect data systematically about uptake, and roughly the same proportions do not systematically evaluate their usefulness or impact in other ways.ConclusionThe findings from our survey, the most broadly based of its kind, both extend or clarify the applicability of the messages arising from previous surveys and related documentary analyses, such as how the 'principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs' and the importance of collaborating with other organizations. The survey also provides a description of the history, structure, processes, outputs, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations from which those establishing or leading similar organizations can draw.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious efforts to produce case descriptions have typically not focused on the organizations that produce research evidence and support its use. External evaluations of such organizations have typically not been analyzed as a group to identify the lessons that have emerged across multiple evaluations. Case descriptions offer the potential for capturing the views and experiences of many individuals who are familiar with an organization, including staff, advocates, and critics.MethodsWe purposively sampled a subgroup of organizations from among those that participated in the second (interview) phase of the study and (once) from among other organizations with which we were familiar. We developed and pilot-tested a case description data collection protocol, and conducted site visits that included both interviews and documentary analyses. Themes were identified from among responses to semi-structured questions using a constant comparative method of analysis. We produced both a brief (one to two pages) written description and a video documentary for each case.ResultsWe conducted 51 interviews as part of the eight site visits. Two organizational strengths were repeatedly cited by individuals participating in the site visits: use of an evidence-based approach (which was identified as being very time-consuming) and existence of a strong relationship between researchers and policymakers (which can be challenged by conflicts of interest). Two organizational weaknesses - a lack of resources and the presence of conflicts of interest - were repeatedly cited by individuals participating in the site visits. Participants offered two main suggestions for the World Health Organization (and other international organizations and networks): 1) mobilize one or more of government support, financial resources, and the participation of both policymakers and researchers; and 2) create knowledge-related global public goods.ConclusionThe findings from our case descriptions, the first of their kind, intersect in interesting ways with the messages arising from two systematic reviews of the factors that increase the prospects for research use in policymaking. Strong relationships between researchers and policymakers bodes well given such interactions appear to increase the prospects for research use. The time-consuming nature of an evidence-based approach, on the other hand, suggests the need for more efficient production processes that are 'quick and clean enough.' Our case descriptions and accompanying video documentaries provide a rich description of organizations supporting the use of research evidence, which can be drawn upon by those establishing or leading similar organizations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

Project description:BackgroundOnly a small number of previous efforts to describe the experiences of organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), undertake health technology assessments (HTAs), or directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) have relied on interviews and then only with HTA agencies. Interviews offer the potential for capturing experiences in great depth, particularly the experiences of organizations that may be under-represented in surveys.MethodsWe purposively sampled organizations from among those who completed a questionnaire in the first phase of our three-phase study, developed and piloted a semi-structured interview guide, and conducted the interviews by telephone, audio-taped them, and took notes simultaneously. Binary or categorical responses to more structured questions were counted when possible. Themes were identified from among responses to semi-structured questions using a constant comparative method of analysis. Illustrative quotations were identified to supplement the narrative description of the themes.ResultsWe interviewed the director (or his or her nominee) in 25 organizations, of which 12 were GSUs. Using rigorous methods that are systematic and transparent (sometimes shortened to 'being evidence-based') was the most commonly cited strength among all organizations. GSUs more consistently described their close links with policymakers as a strength, whereas organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both had conflicting viewpoints about such close links. With few exceptions, all types of organizations tended to focus largely on weaknesses in implementation, rather than strengths. The advice offered to those trying to establish similar organizations include: 1) collaborate with other organizations; 2) establish strong links with policymakers and stakeholders; 3) be independent and manage conflicts of interest; 4) build capacity; 5) use good methods and be transparent; 6) start small and address important questions; and 7) be attentive to implementation considerations. The advice offered to the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations and networks was to foster collaborations across organizations.ConclusionThe findings from our interview study, the most broadly based of its kind, extend to both CPG-producing organizations and GSUs the applicability of the messages arising from previous interview studies of HTA agencies, such as to collaborate with other organizations and to be attentive to implementation considerations. Our interview study also provides a rich description of organizations supporting the use of research evidence, which can be drawn upon by those establishing or leading similar organizations in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent incentive programmes are not sufficient to motivate researchers and policy-makers to use research evidence in policy-making. We conducted a mixed-methods design to identify context-based policy options for strengthening motivations among health researchers and policy-makers to support evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) in Iran.MethodsThis study was conducted in 2019 in two phases. In the first phase, we conducted a scoping review to extract interventions implemented or proposed to strengthen motivations to support EIHP. Additionally, we employed a comparative case study design for reviewing the performance evaluation (PE) processes in Iran and other selected countries to determine the current individual and organizational incentives to encourage EIHP. In the second phase, we developed two policy briefs and then convened two policy dialogues, with 12 and 8 key informants, respectively, where the briefs were discussed. Data were analysed using manifest content analysis in order to propose contextualized policy options.ResultsThe policy options identified to motivate health researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP in Iran were: revising the criteria of academic PE; designing appropriate incentive programmes for nonacademic researchers; developing an indicator for the evaluation of research impact on policy-making or health outcomes; revising the current policies of scientific journals; revising existing funding mechanisms; presenting the knowledge translation plan when submitting a research proposal, as a mandatory condition; encouraging and supporting mechanisms for increasing interactions between policy-makers and researchers; and revising some administrative processes (e.g. managers and staff PEs; selection, appointment, and changing managers and reward mechanisms).ConclusionsThe current individual or organizational incentives are mainly focused on publications, rather than encouraging researchers and policy-makers to support EIHP. Relying more on incentives that consider the other impacts of research (e.g. impacts on health system and policy, or health outcomes) is recommended. These incentives may encourage individuals and organizations to be more involved in conducting research evidence, resulting in promoting EIHP.Trial registrationNA.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough most donor and development agency attention is focussed on communicable diseases in Kenya, the importance of non-communicable diseases including mental health and mental illness is increasingly apparent, both in their own right and because of their influence on health, education and social goals. Mental illness is common but the specialist service is extremely sparse and primary care is struggling to cope with major health demands. Non health sectors e.g. education, prisons, police, community development, gender and children, regional administration and local government have significant concerns about mental health, but general health programmes have been surprisingly slow to appreciate the significance of mental health for physical health targets. Despite a people centred post colonial health delivery system, poverty and global social changes have seriously undermined equity. This project sought to meet these challenges, aiming to introduce sustainable mental health policy and implementation across the country, within the context of extremely scarce resources.MethodsA multi-faceted and comprehensive programme which combined situation appraisal to inform planning, sustained intersectoral policy dialogue at national and regional level; establishment of a health sector system for coordination, supervision and training of at each level (national, regional, district and primary care); development workshops; production of toolkits, development of guidelines and standards; encouragement of intersectoral liaison at national, regional, district and local levels; public education; and integration of mental health into health management systems.ResultsThe programme has achieved detailed situation appraisal, epidemiological needs assessment, inclusion of mental health into the health sector reform plans, and into the National Package of Essential Health Interventions, annual operational plans, mental health policy guidelines to accompany the general health policy, tobacco legislation, adaptation of the WHO primary care guidelines for Kenya, primary care training, construction of a quality system of roles and responsibilities, availability of medicines at primary care level, some strengthening of intersectoral liaison with police, prisons and schools, and public education about mental health.ConclusionsThe project has demonstrated the importance of using a multi-faceted and comprehensive programme to promote sustainable system change, key elements of which include a focus on the use of rapid appropriate assessment and treatment at primary care level, strengthening the referral system, interministerial and intersectoral liaison, rehabilitation, social inclusion, promotion and advocacy to mobilize community engagement.

Project description:BackgroundThe institutionalization of evidence-informed health policy-making (EIHP) is complex and complicated. It is complex because it has many players and is complicated because its institutionalization will require many changes that will be challenging to make. Like many other issues, strengthening EIHP needs a road map, which should consider challenges and address them through effective, harmonized and contextualized strategies. This study aims to develop a road map for enhancing EIHP in Iran based on steps of planning.MethodsThis study consisted of three phases: (1) identifying barriers to EIHP, (2) recognizing interventions and (3) measuring the use of evidence in Iran's health policy-making. A set of activities was established for conducting these, including foresight, systematic review and policy dialogue, to identify the current and potential barriers for the first phase. For the second phase, an evidence synthesis was performed through a scoping review, by searching the websites of benchmark institutions which had good examples of EIHP practices in order to extract and identify interventions, and through eight policy dialogues and two broad opinion polls to contextualize the list of interventions. Simultaneously, two qualitative-quantitative studies were conducted to design and use a tool for assessing EIHP in the third phase.ResultsWe identified 97 barriers to EIHP and categorized them into three groups, including 35 barriers on the "generation of evidence" (push side), 41 on the "use of evidence" (pull side) and 21 on the "interaction between these two" (exchange side). The list of 41 interventions identified through evidence synthesis and eight policy dialogues was reduced to 32 interventions after two expert opinion polling rounds. These interventions were classified into four main strategies for strengthening (1) the education and training system (6 interventions), (2) the incentives programmes (7 interventions), (3) the structure of policy support organizations (4 interventions) and (4) the enabling processes to support EIHP (15 interventions).ConclusionThe policy options developed in the study provide a comprehensive framework to chart a path for strengthening the country's EIHP considering both global practices and the context of Iran. It is recommended that operational plans be prepared for road map interventions, and the necessary resources provided for their implementation. The implementation of the road map will require attention to the principles of good governance, with a focus on transparency and accountability. Video abstract.

Project description:BackgroundCovid-19 pandemic became an unexpected stressor for the entire population and, particularly, for pregnant women and lactating mothers. The alarming infectious risk together with the lockdown period could affect the emotional state of mothers-to-be, as well as breastfeeding rates, mother-baby bonding, or neonatal weight gain. The aim of this study is to describe the impact of this world health emergency in mother-baby pairs right after the first wave of Sars-Cov-2 pandemic (from March to May 2020).Study designA prospective observational study was carried out in mother-child dyads from those women who gave birth between June and August 2020 in a tertiary hospital. 91 mother-baby pairs were initially enrolled and 56 of them completed the follow-up. The study design had two separate steps: i) Step one: A clinical interview plus three psychometric tests (EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, PBQ: Postpartum Bonding Questionnaire and STAI-S: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory); ii) Step two: mother-child dyads were followed using a round of three brief telephone interviews (conducted at the newborn's 7, 14 and 28 days of age) to accurately depict the newborn's outcome in the neonatal period.ResultsIn terms of maternal mental health, 25% of the sample screens positively in the EPDS, requiring further evaluation to rule out depressive symptoms. STAI-state and PBQ detect no abnormalities in either anxiety levels or mother-child bonding in our sample, as 100% of the mothers score below the cut-off points in each test (34 and 26 respectively). When comparing feeding practices (breast/bottle feeding) in 2020 to those practices during pre-pandemic years (2017-2019), a significant increase in breastfeeding was found in pandemic times. All newborns in the sample showed an adequate weight gain during their first month of life.ConclusionWomen and newborns in our sample did not experience an increase in adverse outcomes in the neonatal period in terms of maternal mental health, breastfeeding rates, bonding and further neonatal development.