Cost of implementing the QualityRights programme in public hospitals in Gujarat providing mental healthcare.

Background & objectives: Investment in mental health is quite meagre worldwide, including in India. The costs of new interventions must be clarified to ensure the appropriate utilization of available resources. The government of Gujarat implemented QualityRights intervention at six public mental health hospitals. This study was aimed to project the costs of scaling up of the Gujarat QualityRights intervention to understand the additional resources needed for a broader implementation. Methods: Economic costs of the QualityRights intervention were calculated using an ingredients-based approach from the health systems' perspective. Major activities within the QualityRights intervention included assessment visits, meetings, training of trainers, provision of peer support and onsite training. Results: Total costs of implementing the QualityRights intervention varied from Indian Rupees (₹) 0.59 million to ₹ 2.59 million [1United States Dollars (US $) = ₹ 74.132] across six intervention sites at 2020 prices with 69-79 per cent of the cost being time cost. Scaling up the intervention to the entire State of Gujarat would require about two per cent increase in financial investment, or about 7.5 per cent increase in total cost including time costs over and above the costs of usual care for people with mental health conditions in public health facilities across the State. Interpretation & conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that human resources were the major cost contributor of the programme. Given the shortage of trained human resources in the mental health sector, appropriate planning during the scale-up phase of the QualityRights intervention is required to ensure all staff members receive the required training, and the treatment is not compromised during this training phase. As only about two per cent increase in financial cost can improve the quality of mental healthcare significantly, the State government can plan for its scale-up across the State.

Attitudes towards persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities as rights holders in Ghana: a World Health Organization study.

BACKGROUND: There are currently major efforts underway in Ghana to address stigma and discrimination, and promote the human rights of those with mental health conditions, within mental health services and the community, working with the World Health Organization's QualityRights initiative. The present study aims to investigate attitudes towards people with lived experience of mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities as rights holders. METHODS: Stakeholders within the Ghanaian mental health system and community, including health professionals, policy makers, and persons with lived experience, completed the QualityRights pre-training questionnaire. The items examined attitudes towards coercion, legal capacity, service environment, and community inclusion. Additional analyses explored how far participant factors may link to attitudes. RESULTS: Overall, attitudes towards the rights of persons with lived experience were not well aligned with a human rights approach to mental health. Most people supported the use of coercive practices and often thought that health practitioners and family members were in the best position to make treatment decisions. Health/mental health professionals were less likely to endorse coercive measures compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: This was the first in-depth study assessing attitudes towards persons with lived experience as rights holders in Ghana, and frequently attitudes did not comply with human rights standards, demonstrating a need for training initiatives to combat stigma and discrimination and promote human rights.

Systematic evaluation of the QualityRights programme in public mental health facilities in Gujarat, India.

BACKGROUND: Recognising the significant extent of poor-quality care and human rights issues in mental health, the World Health Organization launched the QualityRights initiative in 2013 as a practical tool for implementing human rights standards including the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) at the ground level. AIMS: To describe the first large-scale implementation and evaluation of QualityRights as a scalable human rights-based approach in public mental health services in Gujarat, India. METHOD: This is a pragmatic trial involving implementation of QualityRights at six public mental health services chosen by the Government of Gujarat. For comparison, we identified three other public mental health services in Gujarat that did not receive the QualityRights intervention. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, the quality of services provided by those services receiving the QualityRights intervention improved significantly. Staff in these services showed substantially improved attitudes towards service users (effect sizes 0.50-0.17), and service users reported feeling significantly more empowered (effect size 0.07) and satisfied with the services offered (effect size 0.09). Caregivers at the intervention services also reported a moderately reduced burden of care (effect size 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: To date, some countries are hesitant to reforming mental health services in line with the CRPD, which is partially attributable to a lack of knowledge and understanding about how this can be achieved. This evaluation shows that QualityRights can be effectively implemented even in resource-constrained settings and has a significant impact on the quality of mental health services.