The effectiveness of mental health interventions involving non-specialists and digital technology in low-and middle-income countries - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Combining non-specialists and digital technologies in mental health interventions could decrease the mental healthcare gap in resource scarce countries. This systematic review examined different combinations of non-specialists and digital technologies in mental health interventions and their effectiveness in reducing the mental healthcare gap in low-and middle-income countries. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in four databases (September 2023), three trial registries (January-February 2022), and using forward and backward citation searches (May-June 2022). The review included primary studies on mental health interventions combining non-specialists and digital technologies in low-and middle-income countries. The outcomes were: (1) the mental health of intervention receivers and (2) the competencies of non-specialists to deliver mental health interventions. Data were expressed as standardised effect sizes (Cohen's d) and narratively synthesised. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for individual and cluster randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. RESULTS: Of the 28 included studies (n = 32 interventions), digital technology was mainly used in non-specialist primary-delivery treatment models for common mental disorders or subthreshold symptoms. The competencies of non-specialists were improved with digital training (d ≤ 0.8 in 4/7 outcomes, n = 4 studies, 398 participants). The mental health of receivers improved through non-specialist-delivered interventions, in which digital technologies were used to support the delivery of the intervention (d > 0.8 in 24/40 outcomes, n = 11, 2469) or to supervise the non-specialists' work (d = 0.2-0.8 in 10/17 outcomes, n = 3, 3096). Additionally, the mental health of service receivers improved through digitally delivered mental health services with non-specialist involvement (d = 0.2-0.8 in 12/27 outcomes, n = 8, 2335). However, the overall certainty of the evidence was poor. CONCLUSION: Incorporating digital technologies into non-specialist mental health interventions tended to enhance non-specialists' competencies and knowledge in intervention delivery, and had a positive influence on the severity of mental health problems, mental healthcare utilization, and psychosocial functioning outcomes of service recipients, primarily within primary-deliverer care models. More robust evidence is needed to compare the magnitude of effectiveness and identify the clinical relevance of specific digital functions. Future studies should also explore long-term and potential adverse effects and interventions targeting men and marginalised communities.

How competent are non-specialists trained to integrate mental health services in primary care? Global health perspectives from Uganda, Liberia, and Nepal.

Evaluations to objectively assess minimum competency are not routinely implemented for training and supervision in global mental health. Addressing this gap in competency assessment is crucial for safe and effective mental health service integration in primary care. To explore competency, this study describes a training and supervision program for 206 health workers in Uganda, Liberia, and Nepal in humanitarian settings impacted by political violence, Ebola, and natural disasters. Health workers were trained in the World Health Organization's mental health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP). Health workers demonstrated changes in knowledge (mhGAP knowledge, effect size, d = 1.14), stigma (Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes, d = -0.64; Social Distance Scale, d = -0.31), and competence (ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors, ENACT, d = 1.68). However, health workers were only competent in 65% of skills. Although the majority were competent in communication skills and empathy, they were not competent in assessing physical and mental health, addressing confidentiality, involving family members in care, and assessing suicide risk. Higher competency was associated with lower stigma (social distance), but competency was not associated with knowledge. To promote competency, this study recommends (1) structured role-plays as a standard evaluation practice; (2) standardized reporting of competency, knowledge, attitudes, and clinical outcomes; and (3) shifting the field toward competency-based approaches to training and supervision.

Effectiveness of non-specialist delivered psychological interventions on glycemic control and mental health problems in individuals with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Typically, specialist mental health professionals deliver psychological interventions for individuals with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and related mental health problems. However, such interventions are not generalizable to low- and middle-income countries, due to the dearth of trained mental health professionals. Individuals with little or no experience in the field of mental health (referred to as non-specialists) may have an important role to play in bridging this treatment gap. AIM: To synthesise evidence for the effectiveness of non-specialist delivered psychological interventions on glycaemic control and mental health problems in people with T2DM. METHODS: Eight databases and reference lists of previous reviews were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Outcome measures were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), diabetes distress and depression. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool was used for risk of bias assessment. Data from the included studies were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: 16 RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The 11 studies that were pooled in the meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in HbA1c in favor of non-specialist delivered psychological interventions when compared with control groups (pooled mean difference = - 0.13; 95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.04, p = 0.005) with high heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 71%, p = 0.0002). The beneficial effects of the interventions on diabetes distress and depression were not consistent across the different trials. CONCLUSION: Non-specialist delivered psychological interventions may be effective in improving HbA1c. These interventions have some promising benefits on diabetes distress and depression, although the findings are inconclusive. More studies of non-specialist delivered psychological interventions are needed in low- and middle-income countries to provide more evidence of the potential effectiveness of these interventions for individuals living with T2DM.

Effectiveness of Group Problem Management Plus (Group-PM+) for adults affected by humanitarian crises in Nepal: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the lack of availability of psychological services for people exposed to adversities has led to the development of a range of scalable psychological interventions with features that enable better scale-up. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a brief intervention of five sessions that can be delivered by non-specialists. It is designed for people in communities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) affected by any kind of adversity. Two recent randomized controlled trials in Pakistan and Kenya demonstrated the effectiveness of individually delivered PM+. A group version of PM+ has been developed to make the intervention more scalable and acceptable. This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial (c-RCT) on locally adapted Group PM+ in Nepal. METHODS/DESIGN: This c-RCT will compare Group PM+ to enhanced usual care (EUC) in participants with high levels of psychological distress recruited from the community. The study is designed as a two-arm, single-blind c-RCT that will be conducted in a community-based setting in Morang, a flood affected district in Eastern Nepal. Randomization will occur at ward level, the smallest administrative level in Nepal, with 72 enrolled wards allocated to Group PM+ or to EUC (ratio 1:1). Group PM+ consists of five approximately 2.5-h sessions, in which participants are taught techniques to manage their stressors and problems, and is delivered by trained and supervised community psychosocial workers (CPSWs). EUC consists of a family meeting with (a) basic information on adversity and mental health, (b) benefits of getting support, (c) information on seeking services from local health facilities with mhGAP-trained staff. The primary outcome measure is levels of individual psychological distress at endline (equivalent to 20 ± 1 weeks after baseline), measured by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Secondary outcome measures include levels of functioning, depressive symptoms, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, levels of social support, somatic symptoms, and ways of coping. We hypothesize that skills acquired will mediate any impact of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This c-RCT will contribute to the growing evidence-base for transdiagnostic psychological interventions delivered by non-specialists for people in communities affected by adversity. If Group PM+ is proven effective, the intervention manual will be released for use, giving the opportunity for further adaptation and implementation of the intervention in diverse settings with communities that require better access to psychological interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03747055.

Measuring functional disability in children with developmental disorders in low-resource settings: validation of Developmental Disorders-Children Disability Assessment Schedule (DD-CDAS) in rural Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Developmental disorders (DDs) in children are a priority condition and guidelines have been developed for their management within low-resource community settings. However, a key obstacle is lack of open access, reliable and valid tools that lay health workers can use to evaluate the impact of such programmes on child outcomes. We adapted and validated the World Health Organization's Disability Assessment Schedule for children (WHODAS-Child), a lay health worker-administered functioning-related tool, for children with DDs in Pakistan. METHODS: Lay health workers administered a version of the WHODAS-Child to parents of children with DDs (N = 400) and without DDs (N = 400), aged 2-12 years, after it was adapted using qualitative study. Factor analysis, validity, reliability and sensitivity to change analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the adapted outcome measure. RESULTS: Among 800 children, 58% of children were male [mean (s.d.) age 6.68 (s.d. = 2.89)]. Confirmatory Factor Analysis showed a robust factor structure [χ2/df 2.86, RMSEA 0.068 (90% CI 0.064-0.073); Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) 0.92; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.93; Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.93]. The tool demonstrated high internal consistency (α 0.82-0.94), test-retest [Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC) 0.71-0.98] and inter-data collector (ICC 0.97-0.99) reliabilities; good criterion (r -0.71), convergent (r -0.35 to 0.71) and discriminative [M (s.d.) 52.00 (s.d. = 21.97) v. 2.14 (s.d. = 4.00); 95% CI -52.05 to -47.67] validities; and adequate sensitivity to change over time (ES 0.19-0.23). CONCLUSIONS: The lay health worker administrated version of adapted WHODAS-Child is a reliable, valid and sensitive-to-change measure of functional disability in children aged 2-12 years with DDs in rural community settings of Pakistan.

Perspectives of non-specialists on the potential to serve as ethics committee members.

OBJECTIVE: In Japan, under the new Clinical Trials Act pertaining to investigator-initiated clinical trials that came into effect on 1 April 2018, review boards should review proposed clinical trials while considering written opinions from specialists. Additionally, involvement of non-specialists is mandatory, and attention is being placed on their effective contributions. This study was performed to determine representative key issues with which to promote these contributions. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in 2018 using a focus group interview of six non-specialists regarding perspectives on clinical research itself and research ethics committees. RESULTS: For perspectives on clinical research itself, 33 codes were established and sorted into 2 categories and 6 subcategories relating to ambivalence toward clinical research. For perspectives on research ethics committees, 54 codes were established and sorted into 3 categories and 10 subcategories relating to the theme "knowledge and an environment that promotes non-specialist members' participation." One notable result was the willingness of participants to obtain details about a study should they be selected. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that detailed explanation of a particular study would encourage non-specialist members to participate in a clinical research review committee. Education aimed at non-specialist participation should therefore be considered in future studies.

Protocol for a feasibility study of group-based focused psychosocial support to improve the psychosocial well-being and functioning of adults affected by humanitarian crises in Nepal: Group Problem Management Plus (PM+).

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of common mental disorders increases in humanitarian emergencies while access to services to address them decreases. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a brief five-session trans-diagnostic psychological WHO intervention employing empirically supported strategies that can be delivered by non-specialist lay-providers under specialist supervision to adults impaired by distress. Two recent randomized controlled trials in Pakistan and Kenya demonstrated the efficacy of individually delivered PM+. To make PM+ more scalable and acceptable in different contexts, it is important to develop a group version as well, with 6-8 participants in session. A study is needed to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of both the intervention in a new cultural context and the procedures to evaluate Group PM+ in a cluster randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This protocol describes a feasibility trial to Group PM+ in Sindhuli, Nepal. This study will evaluate procedures for a cluster randomized controlled trial (c-RCT) with Village Development Committees (VDCs), which are the second smallest unit of government administration, as the unit of randomization. Adults with high levels of psychological distress and functional impairment will receive either Group PM+ (n = 60) or enhanced usual care (EUC; n = 60). Psychological distress, functional impairment, depression symptoms, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and perceived problems will be measured during screening, pre-treatment baseline, and 7-10 days after the intervention. Qualitative data will be collected from beneficiaries, their families, local stakeholders, and staff to support quantitative data and to identify themes reporting that those involved and/or effected by Group PM+ perceived it as being acceptable, feasible, and useful. The primary objective of this trial is to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention; to identify issues around implementation of local adaptation methods, training, supervision, and outcomes measures; and to assure that procedures are adequate for a subsequent effectiveness c-RCT. DISCUSSION: Outcomes from this trial will contribute to optimizing feasibility and acceptability through cultural adaptation and contextualization of the intervention as well as refining the design for a c-RCT, which will evaluate the effectiveness of Group PM+ in Nepal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03359486.

Reducing stigma among healthcare providers to improve mental health services (RESHAPE): protocol for a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of a stigma reduction intervention for training primary healthcare workers in Nepal.

BACKGROUND: Non-specialist healthcare providers, including primary and community healthcare workers, in low- and middle-income countries can effectively treat mental illness. However, scaling-up mental health services within existing health systems has been limited by barriers such as stigma against people with mental illness. Therefore, interventions are needed to address attitudes and behaviors among non-specialists. Aimed at addressing this gap, REducing Stigma among HealthcAre Providers to ImprovE mental health services (RESHAPE) is an intervention in which social contact with mental health service users is added to training for non-specialist healthcare workers integrating mental health services into primary healthcare. METHODS: This protocol describes a mixed methods pilot and feasibility study in primary care centers in Chitwan, Nepal. The qualitative component will include key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The quantitative component consists of a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (c-RCT), which will establish parameters for a future effectiveness study of RESHAPE compared to training as usual (TAU). Primary healthcare facilities (the cluster unit, k = 34) will be randomized to TAU or RESHAPE. The direct beneficiaries of the intervention are the primary healthcare workers in the facilities (n = 150); indirect beneficiaries are their patients (n = 100). The TAU condition is existing mental health training and supervision for primary healthcare workers delivered through the Programme for Improving Mental healthcarE (PRIME) implementing the mental health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP). The primary objective is to evaluate acceptability and feasibility through qualitative interviews with primary healthcare workers, trainers, and mental health service users. The secondary objective is to collect quantitative information on health worker outcomes including mental health stigma (Social Distance Scale), clinical knowledge (mhGAP), clinical competency (ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors, ENACT), and implicit attitudes (Implicit Association Test, IAT), and patient outcomes including stigma-related barriers to care, daily functioning, and symptoms. DISCUSSION: The pilot and feasibility study will contribute to refining recommendations for implementation of mhGAP and other mental health services in primary healthcare settings in low-resource health systems. The pilot c-RCT findings will inform an effectiveness trial of RESHAPE to advance the evidence-base for optimal approaches to training and supervision for non-specialist providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02793271.

[Relevance and Application of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Pain in Switzerland­a National Survey]. / Stellenwert und Einsatz von Opioiden in der Therapie chronischer Schmerzen in Schweizer Arztpraxen--eine nationale Umfrage.

METHOD: National survey on treatment with opioids among 1206 Swiss general internists and rheumatologists, using a questionnaire. TYPES OF PAIN: More self-declared pain specialists than non-specialists treat neuropathic pain (49,3 vs. 35,8%; p=0,002), whereas other types of pain are similarly often treated by specialists and non-specialists. OPIOID PRESCRIPTION: Pain specialists more often than non-specialists use opioids in visceral (12,8 vs. 5,9%, p=0,004) and postoperative pain (29,3 vs. 20,1%, p=0,013). TUMOR PAIN: Non-specialists rather than specialists prescribe opioids (80,4 vs. 72,8%, p=0,039); younger physicians (<50 years) rather than older ones often prescribe opioids (82,5 vs. 76,9%; p=0,026), and rheumatologists use opioids less often than general internists (43,3 vs. 83,0%, p<0,0001). WHO ANALGESIC LADDER: Specialists more often change directly from level 1 to level 3 analgesics (66,4 vs. 53,8%; p=0,001).