Qualitative assessment of evidence-informed adolescent mental health policymaking in India: insights from project SAMA.

BACKGROUND: The importance of evidence-informed health policymaking is widely recognized. However, many low- and middle-income countries lack evidence-informed mental health policies due to insufficient data, stigma or lack of resources. Various policies address adolescent mental health in India, but published knowledge on their evidence-informed nature is limited. In this paper, we report results of our analysis of the role of evidence in adolescent mental health policymaking in India. METHODS: This paper reports findings from the document analysis of key policy documentation (n = 10) and in-depth interviews with policy actors including policymakers, researchers, practitioners and intermediaries (n = 13). Framework analysis was used, informed by the components of a conceptual framework adapted from the literature: actors, policy and evidence processes, nature of evidence itself and contextual influences. RESULTS: Results show that adolescent mental health policies in India were generally evidence-informed, with more key evidence becoming generally available from 2010 onwards. Both formal and informal evidence informed mental health policies, particularly agenda-setting and policy development. Mental health policymaking in India is deemed important yet relatively neglected due to competing policy priorities and structural barriers such as stigma. Use of evidence in mental health policymaking reflected differing values, interests, relative powers and ideologies of policy actors. Involvement of government officials in evidence generation often resulted in successful evidence uptake in policy decisions. Policy actors often favoured formal and quantitative evidence, with a tendency to accept global evidence that aligns with personal values. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to ensure a balanced and complementary combination of formal and informal evidence for policy decisions. Evidence generation, dissemination and use for policy processes should recognize evidence preferences by key stakeholders, while prioritizing locally available evidence where possible. To help this, a balanced involvement of policy actors can ensure complementary perspectives in evidence production and policy agendas. This continued generation and promotion of evidence can also help reduce societal stigma around mental health and promote mental health as a key policy priority.

"Figuring stuff out myself" - a qualitative study on maternal vaccination in socially and ethnically diverse areas in England.

BACKGROUND: Maternal vaccinations against Influenza, Pertussis, and Covid-19 are recommended in the UK, and vaccines against further infections may become available soon. However, many pregnant women, especially in socially and ethnically diverse areas, have low vaccine uptake. Qualitative studies on the reasons and possible solutions are needed that are inclusive of disadvantaged and minority ethnic groups. We therefore aimed to understand the complex interplay between structural and behavioural factors contributing to the low maternal vaccine uptake in socially and ethnically diverse areas in London in the Covid-19 context. METHODS: In 2022, we conducted semi-structured interviews and a focus group discussion among a purposive sample of 38 pregnant/recently pregnant women and 20 health service providers, including 12 midwives. Participants were recruited in ethnically diverse London boroughs. We followed a critical realist paradigm and used a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The sample included participants who took all, some or none of the maternal vaccines, with some participants unsure whether they had taken or been offered the vaccines. Decision-making was passive or active, with the expectation for pregnant women to do their 'own research'. Participants described various individual, social and contextual influences on their decision-making as they navigated the antenatal care system. Missing or conflicting information from providers meant knowledge gaps were sometimes filled with misinformation from unreliable sources that increased uncertainties and mistrust. Both pregnant women and providers described structural and organisational factors that hindered access to information and vaccinations, including lack of training, time and resources, and shortcomings of health information systems and apps. Some participants described factors that facilitated vaccination uptake and many made recommendations for improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed how structural and organisational factors can compound uncertainties around maternal vaccination among socially and ethnically diverse populations. Results highlight the need for more reliable resources, streamlined workflows, improved electronic information systems and training in their use. Roles and responsibilities should be clarified with potential greater involvement of nurses and pharmacists in vaccine provision. Education and communication should consider individual (language/digital) skills and needs for information and reassurance. Further research is needed to co-produce solutions with service users and providers.

Improving experience of medical abortion at home in a changing therapeutic, technological and regulatory landscape: a realist review.

OBJECTIVE: To inform UK service development to support medical abortion at home, appropriate for person and context. DESIGN: Realist review SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Peer-reviewed literature from 1 January 2000 to 9 December 2021, describing interventions or models of home abortion care. Participants included people seeking or having had an abortion. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions and new models of abortion care relevant to the UK. OUTCOME MEASURES: Causal explanations, in the form of context-mechanism-outcome configurations, to test and develop our realist programme theory. RESULTS: We identified 12 401 abstracts, selecting 944 for full text assessment. Our final review included 50 papers. Medical abortion at home is safe, effective and acceptable to most, but clinical pathways and user experience are variable and a minority would not choose this method again. Having a choice of abortion location remains essential, as some people are unable to have a medical abortion at home. Choice of place of abortion (home or clinical setting) was influenced by service factors (appointment number, timing and wait-times), personal responsibilities (caring/work commitments), geography (travel time/distance), relationships (need for secrecy) and desire for awareness/involvement in the process. We found experiences could be improved by offering: an option for self-referral through a telemedicine consultation, realistic information on a range of experiences, opportunities to personalise the process, improved pain relief, and choice of when and how to discuss contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the work done by patients when moving medical abortion care from clinic to home is important. Patients may benefit from support to: prepare a space, manage privacy and work/caring obligations, decide when/how to take medications, understand what is normal, assess experience and decide when and how to ask for help. The transition of this complex intervention when delivered outside healthcare environments could be supported by strategies that reduce surprise or anxiety, enabling preparation and a sense of control.