Search

Author(s): Rimal, Pragya; Choudhury, Nandini; Agrawal, Pawan; Basnet, Madhur; Bohara, Bhavendra; Citrin, David; Dhungana, Santosh Kumar; Gauchan, Bikash; Gupta, Priyanka; Gupta, Tula Krishna; Halliday, Scott; Kadayat, Bharat; Mahar, Ramesh; Maru, Duncan; Nguyen, Viet; Poudel, Sanjaya; Raut, Anant; Rawal, Janaki; Sapkota, Sabitri; Schwarz, Dan; Schwarz, Ryan; Shrestha, Srijana; Swar, Sikhar; Thapa, Aradhana; Thapa, Poshan; White, Rebecca; Acharya, Bibhav | Abstract: IntroductionDespite carrying a disproportionately high burden of depression, patients in low-income countries lack access to effective care. The collaborative care model (CoCM) has robust evidence for clinical effectiveness in improving mental health outcomes. However, evidence from real-world implementation of CoCM is necessary to inform its expansion in low-resource settings.MethodsWe conducted a 2-year mixed-methods study to assess the implementation and clinical impact of CoCM using the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme protocols in a primary care clinic in rural Nepal. We used the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) implementation research framework to adapt and study the intervention. To assess implementation factors, we qualitatively studied the impact on providers' behaviour to screen, diagnose and treat mental illness. To assess clinical impact, we followed a cohort of 201 patients with moderate to severe depression and determined the proportion of patients who had a substantial clinical response (defined as ≥50% decrease from baseline scores of Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) to measure depression) by the end of the study period.ResultsProviders experienced improved capability (enhanced self-efficacy and knowledge), greater opportunity (via access to counsellors, psychiatrist, medications and diagnostic tests) and increased motivation (developing positive attitudes towards people with mental illness and seeing patients improve) to provide mental healthcare. We observed substantial clinical response in 99 (49%; 95% CI: 42% to 56%) of the 201 cohort patients, with a median seven point (Q1:-9, Q3:-2) decrease in PHQ-9 scores (pl0.0001).ConclusionUsing the COM-B framework, we successfully adapted and implemented CoCM in rural Nepal, and found that it enhanced providers' positive perceptions of and engagement in delivering mental healthcare. We observed clinical improvement of depression comparable to controlled trials in high-resource settings. We recommend using implementation research to adapt and evaluate CoCM in other resource-constrained settings to help expand access to high-quality mental healthcare.

Background The Collaborative Care Model (CoCM) for mental healthcare, where a consulting psychiatrist supports primary care and behavioral health workers, has the potential to address the large unmet burden of mental illness worldwide. A core component of this model is that the psychiatrist reviews treatment plans for a panel of patients and provides specific clinical recommendations to improve the quality of care. Very few studies have reported data on such recommendations. This study reviews and classifies the recommendations made by consulting psychiatrists in a rural primary care clinic in Nepal. Methods A chart review was conducted for all patients whose cases were reviewed by the treatment team from January to June 2017, after CoCM had been operational for 6 months. Free text of the recommendations were extracted and two coders analyzed the data using an inductive approach to group and categorize recommendations until the coders achieved consensus. Cumulative frequency of the recommendations are tabulated and discussed in the context of an adapted CoCM in rural Nepal. Results The clinical team discussed 1174 patient encounters (1162 unique patients) during panel reviews throughout the study period. The consultant psychiatrist made 214 recommendations for 192 (16%) patients. The most common recommendations were to revisit the primary mental health diagnosis (16%, n = 34), add or increase focus on counselling and psychosocial support (9%, n = 20), increase the antidepressant dose (9%, n = 20), and discontinue inappropriate medications (6%, n = 12). Conclusions In this CoCM study, the majority of treatment plans did not require significant change. The recommendations highlight the challenge that non-specialists face in making an accurate mental health diagnosis, the relative neglect of non-pharmacological interventions, and the risk of inappropriate medications. These results can inform interventions to better support non-specialists in rural areas

International audience; BackgroundMental illnesses are the largest contributors to the global burden of non-communicable diseases. However, there is extremely limited access to high quality, culturally-sensitive, and contextually-appropriate mental healthcare services. This situation persists despite the availability of interventions with proven efficacy to improve patient outcomes. A partnerships network is necessary for successful program adaptation and implementation.Partnerships networkWe describe our partnerships network as a case example that addresses challenges in delivering mental healthcare and which can serve as a model for similar settings. Our perspectives are informed from integrating mental healthcare services within a rural public hospital in Nepal. Our approach includes training and supervising generalist health workers by off-site psychiatrists. This is made possible by complementing the strengths and weaknesses of the various groups involved: the public sector, a non-profit organization that provides general healthcare services and one that specializes in mental health, a community advisory board, academic centers in high- and low-income countries, and bicultural professionals from the diaspora community.ConclusionsWe propose a partnerships model to assist implementation of promising programs to expand access to mental healthcare in low- resource settings. We describe the success and limitations of our current partners in a mental health program in rural Nepal.

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.

International audience; Although there are guidelines for transcultural adaptation and validation of psychometric tools, similar resources do not exist for translation of diagnostic and symptom terminology used by health professionals to communicate with one another, their patients, and the public. The issue of translation is particularly salient when working with underserved, non-English speaking populations in high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries. As clinicians, researchers, and educators working in cross-cultural settings, we present four recommendations to avoid common pitfalls in these settings. We demonstrate the need for: (1) harmonization of terminology among clinicians, educators of health professionals, and health policymakers; (2) distinction in terminology used among health professionals and that used for communication with patients, families, and the lay public; (3) linkage of symptom assessment with functional assessment; and (4) establishment of a culture of evaluating communication and terminology for continued improvement.

Background.In low- and middle-income countries, mental health training often includes sending few generalist clinicians to specialist-led programs for several weeks. Our objective is to develop and test a video-assisted training model addressing the shortcomings of traditional programs that affect scalability: failing to train all clinicians, disrupting clinical services, and depending on specialists.Methods.We implemented the program -video lectures and on-site skills training- for all clinicians at a rural Nepali hospital. We used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests to evaluate pre- and post-test change in knowledge (diagnostic criteria, differential diagnosis, and appropriate treatment). We used a series of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ questions to assess attitudes about mental illness, and utilized exact McNemar's test to analyze the proportions of participants who held a specific belief before and after the training. We assessed acceptability and feasibility through key informant interviews and structured feedback.Results.For each topic except depression, there was a statistically significant increase (Δ) in median scores on knowledge questionnaires: Acute Stress Reaction (Δ = 20, p = 0.03), Depression (Δ = 11, p = 0.12), Grief (Δ = 40, p < 0.01), Psychosis (Δ = 22, p = 0.01), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Δ = 20, p = 0.01). The training received high ratings; key informants shared examples and views about the training's positive impact and complementary nature of the program's components.Conclusion.Video lectures and on-site skills training can address the limitations of a conventional training model while being acceptable, feasible, and impactful toward improving knowledge and attitudes of the participants.