Mutuality as a method: advancing a social paradigm for global mental health through mutual learning.

PURPOSE: Calls for "mutuality" in global mental health (GMH) aim to produce knowledge more equitably across epistemic and power differences. With funding, convening, and publishing power still concentrated in institutions in the global North, efforts to decolonize GMH emphasize the need for mutual learning instead of unidirectional knowledge transfers. This article reflects on mutuality as a concept and practice that engenders sustainable relations, conceptual innovation, and queries how epistemic power can be shared. METHODS: We draw on insights from an online mutual learning process over 8 months between 39 community-based and academic collaborators working in 24 countries. They came together to advance the shift towards a social paradigm in GMH. RESULTS: Our theorization of mutuality emphasizes that the processes and outcomes of knowledge production are inextricable. Mutual learning required an open-ended, iterative, and slower paced process that prioritized trust and remained responsive to all collaborators' needs and critiques. This resulted in a social paradigm that calls for GMH to (1) move from a deficit to a strength-based view of community mental health, (2) include local and experiential knowledge in scaling processes, (3) direct funding to community organizations, and (4) challenge concepts, such as trauma and resilience, through the lens of lived experience of communities in the global South. CONCLUSION: Under the current institutional arrangements in GMH, mutuality can only be imperfectly achieved. We present key ingredients of our partial success at mutual learning and conclude that challenging existing structural constraints is crucial to prevent a tokenistic use of the concept.

Bringing an end to the silence: identifying priorities and solutions to addressing the mental health consequences of child marriage.

Despite its inclusion in Sustainable Development Goal 5 to end all harmful gendered practices by 2030, child, early and forced marriages continue to be a pervasive problem globally. While there is consistent evidence on the physical health consequences of child marriage, there is a lack of evidence and inquiry into the mental health consequence. We completed a change-oriented Delphi study to establish consensus on priority areas of research and intervention in relation to the mental health consequences of child, early and forced marriages. Invited experts (n = 11), survivors (n = 27) and professionals (n = 30) participated in our Delphi. Four rounds of data collection included: a blended in-person and online workshop with invited experts, an online mixed-methods questionnaire, focus groups in Zimbabwe with women who are survivors of child marriage and a repeat questionnaire sent to the first round of experts. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and ranking methods, consistent with other Delphi studies. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic network analysis. Findings coalesced around three areas: perspectives on the relationship between mental health and child marriage, policy actions and treatment-driven solutions. Consensus was reached on 16 items across these areas which included the need to prioritize psychosocial and social interventions to improve mental health outcomes for women and girls in existing marriages. They also called for new approaches to advocacy to drive awareness of this issue in policy circles. Implications for future practice are discussed.

Participatory mental health interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The launch of the Movement for Global Mental Health brought long-standing calls for improved mental health interventions in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) to centre stage. Within the movement, the participation of communities and people with lived experience of mental health problems is argued as essential to successful interventions. However, there remains a lack of conceptual clarity around 'participation' in mental health interventions with the specific elements of participation rarely articulated. Our review responds to this gap by exploring how 'participation' is applied, what it means and what key mechanisms contribute to change in participatory interventions for mental health in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review methodology will be used to identify the different contexts that trigger mechanisms of change, and the resulting outcomes related to the development and implementation of participatory mental health interventions, that is: what makes participation work in mental health interventions in LMICs and why? We augment our search with primary data collection in communities who are the targets of global mental health initiatives to inform the production of a programme theory on participation for mental health in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for focus group discussions (FGDs) was obtained in each country involved. FGDs will be conducted in line with WHO safety guidance during the COVID-19 crisis. The full review will be published in an academic journal, with further papers providing an in-depth analysis on community perspectives on participation in mental health. The project findings will also be shared on a website, in webinars and an online workshop.