Partnerships in a Global Mental Health Research Programme-the Example of PRIME

How international research consortia can strengthen organisations' research systems and promote a conducive environment and culture

Research systems and cultures have been criticised for their detrimental effect on members' mental health and well-being. Many international research programmes operate through research consortia that have the resources to make a substantial contribution to improving the research environment in their member organisations. This paper collates real-life examples from several large international consortia-based research programmes about how they strengthened organisations' research capacity. The consortia primarily involved academic partners from the UK and/or sub-Saharan Africa and covered research topics including health, natural sciences, conservation agriculture and vector control. They were partly or wholly funded by UK agencies including the Wellcome, Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office, UK Research and Innovation Fund, and the Medical Research Council and they operated for 2-10 years between 2012 and 2022.Consortia's size and ability to access and share resources among their member organisations according to need meant they were uniquely placed to target actions to address weaknesses in member organisations' research capacity, to widen networks and collaborations, and to build in sustainability of capacity gains. Consortia's actions covered: (a) individuals' knowledge and skills; (b) capacity strengthening ethos; (c) organisations' visibility and prestige; and (d) inclusive and responsive management practices. Evidence about these actions formed the basis of recommendations for funders and leaders of consortium-based programmes about how they could make more effective use of consortia's resources to enhance organisations' research systems, environments and cultures.Key lessons were that training should cover management and research leadership and should be offered beyond consortium members, including to research support staff such as technicians and managers. Consortia often tackle complex problems requiring multidisciplinary inputs, but overcoming disciplinary boundaries-and making everyone feel valued and respected-takes time and skill on the part of consortium leaders. Consortia need clear guidance from funders about their commitment to strengthening research capacity. Without this, consortia leaders may continue to prioritise research outputs over creating and embedding sustainable improvements in their organisations' research systems.

Opportunities for improving data sharing and FAIR data practices to advance global mental health

It is crucial to optimize global mental health research to address the high burden of mental health challenges and mental illness for individuals and societies. Data sharing and reuse have demonstrated value for advancing science and accelerating knowledge development. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) Guiding Principles for scientific data provide a framework to improve the transparency, efficiency, and impact of research. In this review, we describe ethical and equity considerations in data sharing and reuse, delineate the FAIR principles as they apply to mental health research, and consider the current state of FAIR data practices in global mental health research, identifying challenges and opportunities. We describe noteworthy examples of collaborative efforts, often across disciplinary and national boundaries, to improve Findability and Accessibility of global mental health data, as well as efforts to create integrated data resources and tools that improve Interoperability and Reusability. Based on this review, we suggest a vision for the future of FAIR global mental health research and suggest practical steps for researchers with regard to study planning, data preservation and indexing, machine-actionable metadata, data reuse to advance science and improve equity, metrics and recognition.

Toward a multi-level strategy to reduce stigma in global mental health: overview protocol of the Indigo Partnership to develop and test interventions in low- and middle-income countries

There is increasing attention to the impacts of stigma and discrimination related to mental health on quality of life and access to and quality of healthcare. Effective strategies for stigma reduction exist, but most evidence comes from high-income settings. Recent reviews of stigma research have identified gaps in the field, including limited cultural and contextual adaptation of interventions, a lack of contextual psychometric information on evaluation tools, and, most notably, a lack of multi-level strategies for stigma reduction. The Indigo Partnership research programme will address these knowledge gaps through a multi-country, multi-site collaboration for anti-stigma interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (China, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Tunisia). The Indigo Partnership aims to: (1) carry out research to strengthen the understanding of mechanisms of stigma processes and reduce stigma and discrimination against people with mental health conditions in LMICs; and (2) establish a strong collaborative research consortium through the conduct of this programme. Specifically, the Indigo Partnership involves developing and pilot testing anti-stigma interventions at the community, primary care, and mental health specialist care levels, with a systematic approach to cultural and contextual adaptation across the sites. This work also involves transcultural translation and adaptation of stigma and discrimination measurement tools. The Indigo Partnership operates with the key principle of partnering with people with lived experience of mental health conditions for the development and implementation of the pilot interventions, as well as capacity building and cross-site learning to actively develop a more globally representative and equitable mental health research community. This work is envisioned to have a long-lasting impact, both in terms of the capacity building provided to participating institutions and researchers, and the foundation it provides for future research to extend the evidence base of what works to reduce and ultimately end stigma and discrimination in mental health.

A pilot study to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of training mental health workers in India to select case-specific intervention procedures within a dynamic modular treatment designed for a low-resource setting

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

A key consideration in designing scalable solutions for improving global mental health involves balancing the need for interventions to be uncomplicated for mental health workers (MHWs) and the need for the intervention to be widely applicable to many clients. Often these needs are in competition, since interventions are routinely simplified by removing procedures or reducing their dynamic responsivity, which in turn lowers their overall utility in serving large, clinically diverse populations. The principal aim of this pilot study involved evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a brief strategy designed to delegate problem classification and practice selection to MHWs operating within a flexible, modular, cognitive behavioural protocol. A secondary aim involved gathering data on which to base a hypothesis regarding the potential effectiveness of this strategy.

METHOD

Within an open trial, an educationally diverse sample of local MHWs in India (N = 18) reviewed fictional case vignettes, classified mental health problems, and then selected practices before and after a two-hour training that included a one-page decision-making resource. Feasibility was measured by assessing the integrity of the study protocol and training, the measurement and administration of questionnaires as well as study recruitment and completion. Acceptability of the intervention was measured by MHW-perceived performance, ease of use, value, importance, and intention for continued use. Decision-making accuracy was assessed by comparing MHWs' clinical decisions with criteria established through consensus among psychologists with expertise in modular protocols.

RESULTS

Results suggested high feasibility and acceptability on all metrics. Secondary analysis revealed that MHW's decision-making accuracy and confidence also significantly improved, providing a basis for the hypothesis that this brief approach is useful for building MHW capacity in low-resource settings.

CONCLUSION

Overall these findings provide initial support for these methods and potential training outcomes to test within a larger, randomized controlled trial.

Evidence-based approaches for promoting gender equity in global mental health research: Study protocol for social network analysis of researchers in Nepal

There are increasing efforts for capacity building of researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) to foster local ability to conduct high quality research. However, female researchers remain underrepresented in scientific communities, particularly in LMIC where they have limited networking and mentorship opportunities. This protocol is for a Social Network Analysis (SNA) to evaluate if gender-sensitive, need-based capacity building can improve researchers' networking and mentorship opportunities in Nepal. The conceptual framework is informed by Social Cognitive Career Theory. Cross-sectional and longitudinal SNA are used to a) assess individual researchers’ network characteristics and their association with academic productivity; and b) examine if the association of network characteristics and academic productivity is mediated by self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Recruitment is designed to include early-career and senior researchers conducting mental health research, as well as students interested in pursuing a career in mental health research. The network characteristics will be mapped for approximately 150 researchers in working in Nepal. SNA characteristics in the network (individual density, homophily, and centrality) will be compared with academic productivity (total peer reviewed publications, h-index), including mediation effects via self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Ultimately, this study will generate information to design more evidence-based strategies for capacity building of a gender-equitable research workforce in global mental health.

The Africa Ethics Working Group (AEWG): a model of collaboration for psychiatric genomic research in Africa

The Africa Ethics Working Group (AEWG) is a South-South-North collaboration of bioethics and mental health researchers from sub-Saharan Africa, working to tackle emerging ethical challenges in global mental health research. Initially formed to provide ethical guidance for a neuro-psychiatric genomics research project, AEWG has evolved to address cross cutting ethical issues in mental health research aimed at addressing equity in North-South collaborations. Global South refers to economically developing countries (sub-Saharan Africa in this context) and Global North to economically developed countries (primarily Europe, UK and North America). In this letter we discuss lessons that as a group we have learnt over the last three years; lessons that similar collaborations could draw on. With increasing expertise from Global South as an outcome of several capacity strengthening initiatives, it is expected that the nature of scientific collaborations will shift to a truly equitable partnership. The AEWG provides a model to rethink contributions that each partner could make in these collaborations.

COVID-19 mental health impact and responses in low-income and middle-income countries: reimagining global mental health

Most of the global population live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), which have historically received a small fraction of global resources for mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic has spread rapidly in many of these countries. This Review examines the mental health implications of the COVID-19 pandemic in LMICs in four parts. First, we review the emerging literature on the impact of the pandemic on mental health, which shows high rates of psychological distress and early warning signs of an increase in mental health disorders. Second, we assess the responses in different countries, noting the swift and diverse responses to address mental health in some countries, particularly through the development of national COVID-19 response plans for mental health services, implementation of WHO guidance, and deployment of digital platforms, signifying a welcome recognition of the salience of mental health. Third, we consider the opportunity that the pandemic presents to reimagine global mental health, especially through shifting the balance of power from high-income countries to LMICs and from narrow biomedical approaches to community-oriented psychosocial perspectives, in setting priorities for interventions and research. Finally, we present a vision for the concept of building back better the mental health systems in LMICs with a focus on key strategies; notably, fully integrating mental health in plans for universal health coverage, enhancing access to psychosocial interventions through task sharing, leveraging digital technologies for various mental health tasks, eliminating coercion in mental health care, and addressing the needs of neglected populations, such as children and people with substance use disorders. Our recommendations are relevant for the mental health of populations and functioning of health systems in not only LMICs but also high-income countries impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, with wide disparities in quality of and access to mental health care.

Identifying challenges and recommendations for advancing global mental health implementation research: A key informant study of the National Institute of Mental Health Scale-Up Hubs

OBJECTIVE

This study explored perspectives of researchers working with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Scale-Up Hubs, consisting of research partnerships for scaling up mental health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), to: 1) identify common barriers to conducting impactful research on the implementation of evidence-based mental health services; and 2) provide recommendations to overcome these implementation challenges.

METHODS

A sequential qualitative approach was employed. First, an open-ended survey was distributed to the 10 Scale-Up Hubs and NIMH program staff asking informants to identify challenges in conducting mental health implementation research in LMICs. Second, survey findings guided an in-person workshop to generate implementation recommendations to inform the field.

RESULTS

In total, 46 respondents completed surveys, and 101 researchers attended the workshop. The workshop produced implementation recommendations for low-resource settings: 1) identifying impact of research on policy and practice; 2) sustaining careers of early researchers in global mental health; 3) engaging policymakers and donors to value mental health research; 4) supporting the workforce for delivering evidence-based treatments for mental disorders; and 5) promoting sustainability of programs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings can strengthen collaboration between researchers and key stakeholders, and highlight important targets for improving mental health implementation research in LMICs.

"We need more big trees as well as the grass roots": going beyond research capacity building to develop sustainable careers in mental health research in African countries

BACKGROUND

There are substantial gaps in our knowledge regarding the aetiology of mental, neurological and substance use disorders in sub-Saharan Africa, and the cost-effectiveness and scalability of interventions to reduce the burden of these conditions on the continent. To address these gaps, international investment has focussed on building research capacity, including funding doctoral students in African countries, to support development of high quality, contextually relevant interventions. Absent, however, is an understanding of how capacity building feeds into research careers.

METHODS

Within a broader mental health research capacity-building initiative (African Mental Health Research Initiative), we conducted 52 qualitative interviews with early-career researchers, policymakers, academics, and service users from four African countries (Ethiopia, Malawi, South Africa, and Zimbabwe) and with international funders of mental health research. The interview guide focused on the research context, planning, and priorities and how respondents perceive research careers and funding. Thematic analysis was applied to the transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Five components of a research career emerged: (i) research positions; (ii) research skills; (iii) funding; (iv) research commitment from African countries; and (v) advocacy. All stakeholders wanted more high-impact African researchers, but few saw a clear, replicable track for developing their careers within universities or their Ministries of Health in their African countries. This stemmed, in part, from the lack of support for infrastructure that enables high-quality research: grants administration, mentorship, university leadership, research culture, and open communication between policymakers and researchers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of developing research infrastructure alongside capacity-building efforts. International funders should invest in grant management at African universities which would place them at the centre of research initiatives. African universities should prioritise the creation of a research culture by developing and promoting well-defined research tracks for both clinicians and academics, investing in grant management, and raising the profile of research within their institutions.

Measuring what matters - information systems for management of chronic disease in primary healthcare settings in low and middle-income countries: challenges and opportunities

Effective health information systems are essential to the delivery of high-quality community-based care for chronic disease which will be needed to address the changing healthcare needs of populations in low and middle-income country settings. Health management information systems (health service data collected at facility level) and electronic health records (data organised by individual patients) may support the measurement-based, collaborative approach that is central to the chronic care model, which has been adopted as the basis for task-shared models of care for mental health and non-communicable disease. We used the performance of routine information systems management to guide our commentary on the evidence-base about information systems to support chronic care. We found that, despite an appetite for using the information to support decision-making around service planning, this rarely happens in practice, reasons include that data is not perceived to be of good quality or fit for purpose. There is often a mismatch between technology design and the availability of specialised knowledge and infrastructure. However, when data collection is designed in collaboration with local stakeholders, there is some evidence of success, demonstrated by completion and accuracy of data forms. Whilst there are global targets for the development of health information systems and progress on these is undoubtedly being made, indicators for chronic disease are seldom prioritised by national governments and there is insufficient decentralisation to facilitate local data-driven decision-making. Our recommendations for future research and development, therefore, focus upon the need to integrate context into the design of information systems: through building strong multisectoral partnerships, ensuring newly developed indicators are well aligned to service models and using technology that is a good fit with local infrastructure. This approach will be necessary if information systems are to deliver on their potential to drive improvements in care for chronic disease.

Meeting the mental health needs of low- and middle-income countries: the start of a long journey

SUMMARY

Mental health is increasingly recognised as an important component of global health. In recognition of this fact, the European Union funded the Emerald programme (Emerging Mental Health Systems in Low- and Middle-Income Countries). The aims were to improve mental health in the following six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda. The Emerald programme offers valuable insights into addressing the mental health needs of LMICs. It provides a framework and practical tools. However, it will be important to evaluate longer-term effects including improvements in mental health outcomes, as well as the applicability to LMICs beyond existing participant countries. Importantly, this must be coupled with efforts to improve health worker retention in LMICs.

Managing health research capacity strengthening consortia: a systematised review of the published literature

BACKGROUND

Locally relevant research is considered critical for advancing health and development in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Accordingly, health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) efforts have intensified, increasingly through consortia. Yet, the knowledge base for managing such consortia is not well defined. This review aimed to ascertain the scope and quality of published literature on HRCS consortium management processes, management-related factors influencing consortium operations and outcomes, and the knowledge gaps.

METHODS

Given the paucity of published HRCS literature, a 'systematised review' as outlined by Grant and Booth was conducted, modelling the systematic review process without restriction to research-based publications. A systematic search in PubMed and Scopus was carried out coupled with a manual search for papers using reference checking and citation searching. A quality appraisal of eligible articles using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was undertaken. Thematic synthesis was used to analyse the extracted data.

RESULTS

The search identified 55 papers, made up of 18 empirical papers and 37 commentaries focusing on consortium-based HRCS initiatives involving LMICs and reporting management-related data. The review indicates increasing efforts being made in the HRCS field in reporting consortia outcomes. However, it highlights the dearth of high-quality empirical research on HRCS consortium management and the nascent nature of the field with most papers published after 2010. The available literature highlights the importance of relational management factors such as equity and power relations in influencing consortium success, though these factors were not explored in depth. Operational management processes and their role in the capacity strengthening pathway were rarely examined.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate a weak evidence base for HRCS consortium management both in terms of quantity and conceptual depth, demonstrating the need for an expanded research effort to inform HRCS practice.