Community-based mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative study with international experts.

BACKGROUND: Mental health services are scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and designing and implementing effective interventions can be difficult. The aim of this international study was to explore the key lessons for developing, implementing, and evaluating community-based mental health and well-being interventions in LMICs, with an additional focus on older adults. METHODS: Research and clinical experts in developing and implementing psychosocial community-based interventions in LMICs were interviewed remotely between October 2021 and January 2022. Participants were recruited via existing global health networks and via published literature searches. Participants were asked about their experiences of developing and implementing interventions, and about key barriers and facilitators during the process. Interviews lasted up to 45 min, and data were analysed using combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen global mental health experts participated. Five themes with different sub-themes were generated: Mechanisms and contexts; Barriers; Facilitators; Public and stakeholder involvement; Looking through an ageing lens. The development and delivery of mental health interventions in LMICs are facilitated through integration into existing health infrastructures and working with existing job roles as delivery agents. Public and stakeholder involvement are crucial at all stages of development through to implementation to focus on meeting local needs and sustaining participant motivation. Logistical barriers of transport, resources, and location need to be addressed, emphasising local sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insights for how the development, implementation, and evaluation of community-based mental health and well-being interventions in LMICs can be optimised, and can complement general guidance into complex interventions developments.

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

"Necessity is the mother of invention": Experiences of accessing and delivering dementia-related support services by information communication technology during the pandemic in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The remote delivery of dementia-related support services by information communication technology, defined as any hardware or software, including the telephone and videoconferencing software, increased during the coronavirus pandemic. To guide the future use of information communication technology, this study explored the experiences of delivering and accessing social care and support services during the pandemic in the UK. METHOD: Remote semi-structured interviews with social care and support providers, people with dementia and family carers were conducted between May-December 2022. Topic guides were co-developed with two public advisors (one former family carer, one person with dementia) and garnered information on delivering and accessing services during the pandemic. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim. Employing a mixture of inductive and deductive analytic approaches, a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one interviews (n = 14 social care and support providers; n = 6 family carers; n = 2 people with dementia) were conducted. Three themes were generated: adapting to changing circumstances; responding to unmet needs by information communication technology and information communication technology should be a tool, not the default. Social care and support providers' creativity and motivation facilitated the adoption of information communication technology, however, available resources and guidance varied. While some people with dementia and family carers benefitted from accessing services by information communication technology to address some needs, the format was not suitable for everyone. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond the coronavirus pandemic, the use of information communication technology within service delivery needs to be carefully considered, to avoid disenfranchising some people with dementia and family carers, while empowering people with the option of how to access services. Digital training and guidelines advising the use of information communication technology within service delivery may facilitate its improved use during the current landscape, and amidst future pandemics.

Sequential multiple assignment randomised trial to develop an adaptive mobile health intervention to increase physical activity in people poststroke in the community setting in Ireland: TAPAS trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Stroke is the second-leading cause of death and disability globally. Participation in physical activity (PA) is a cornerstone of secondary prevention in stroke care. Given the heterogeneous nature of stroke, PA interventions that are adaptive to individual performance are recommended. Mobile health (mHealth) has been identified as a potential approach to supporting PA poststroke. To this end, we aim to use a Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomised Trial (SMART) design to develop an adaptive, user-informed mHealth intervention to improve PA poststroke. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The components included in the 12-week intervention are based on empirical evidence and behavioural change theory and will include treatments to increase participation in Structured Exercise and Lifestyle or a combination of both. 117 participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two treatment components. At 6 weeks postinitial randomisation, participants will be classified as responders or non-responders based on participants' change in step count. Non-responders to the initial treatment will be randomly assigned to a different treatment allocation. The primary outcome will be PA (steps/day), feasibility and secondary clinical and cost outcomes will also be included. A SMART design will be used to evaluate the optimum adaptive PA intervention among community-dwelling, ambulatory people poststroke. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the Health Service Executive Mid-Western Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 026/2022). The findings will be submitted for publication and presented at relevant national and international academic conferences TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05606770.