Interdisciplinary research framework for multisectoral mental health policy development

Identifying priorities, directions and a vision for Indigenous mental health using a collaborative and consensus-based facilitation approach

Background

Mental health disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people in Canada are related to underlying economic, social, and political inequities that are legacies of colonization and the oppression of Indigenous cultures. It also widely acknowledged that mental health services currently available may not be culturally appropriate in supporting the health needs of Indigenous Canadians. A two-day Indigenous mental health forum examined mental health needs and gaps among Indigenous communities across the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo (RMWB) on Treaty 8 territory, in northern Alberta, Canada. This paper outlines the insights generated by stakeholder engagement at the forum to identify and prioritize directions for Indigenous mental health and build a vision and strategy for improving mental health services and programs for the region’s diverse Indigenous population.

Methods

We applied a modified nominal group technique (NGT) consensus method embedded within Indigenous knowledge to determine key priorities and directions for Indigenous-focused mental health and synthesize information from discussions that occurred at the forum. Following the NGT, a participatory community visioning exercise was conducted with participants to develop a vision, guiding principles, and components of an action plan for an Indigenous mental health strategy for the RMWB.

Results

Four key themes for setting priorities and directions for Indigenous mental health emerged from roundtable group discussions: 1) understand the realities of mental health experiences for Indigenous peoples, 2) design a holistic and culturally rooted mental health system, 3) foster cross-sectoral engagement and collaboration on mental health service delivery, and 4) focus on children and youth. The community visioning exercise helped stakeholders to visualize a direction or path forward for addressing existing gaps in the mental health system and opportunities for strengthening Indigenous mental health in the region.

Conclusions

Forum participants described mental health and well-being around holistic concepts of social and emotional well-being. Addressing Indigenous mental health and wellness involves multi-sectoral action in various settings including community and school through programs, policies, and other interventions that promote mental health for all Indigenous peoples, as well as for those at greater risk such as children and youth.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07682-3.

The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries

The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a 'wicked problem', often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research-policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n = 13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research-policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research-policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence-policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English.

RESULTS

From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out 'agenda-setting', we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.