Impact of a participatory intervention with women's groups on psychological distress among mothers in rural Bangladesh: secondary analysis of a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Improving mental ill-health with psycho-social group interventions in South Asia-A scoping review using a realist lens

This scoping review aimed to synthesise current evidence related to psycho-social groups as part of community-based mental health interventions in South Asia. We used a realist lens to pay attention to the contexts and mechanisms supporting positive outcomes. We included studies published from January 2007 to February 2022 that: were based in communities in South Asia, included a group component, reported on interventions with a clear psychosocial component, targeted adults and were implemented by lay community health workers. Two reviewers extracted data on intervention components, groups and facilitators, participant demographics and enabling contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Expert reference panels including people with lived experience of psycho-social disability, mental health professionals and policy makers confirmed the validity and relevance of initial review findings. The review examined 15 interventions represented by 42 papers. Only four interventions were solely psycho-social and nearly all included psychoeducation and economic support. Only 8 of the 46 quantitative outcome measures used were developed in South Asia. In a context of social exclusion and limited autonomy for people with psychosocial disability, psychosocial support groups triggered five key mechanisms. Trusted relationships undergirded all mechanisms, and provided a sense of inclusion, social support and of being able to manage mental distress due to improved skills and knowledge. Over time group members felt a sense of belonging and collective strength meaning they were better able to advocate for their own well-being and address upstream social health determinants. This led to outcomes of improved mental health and social participation across the realms of intrapersonal, interpersonal and community. Psychosocial groups merit greater attention as an active ingredient in community interventions and also as an effective, relevant, acceptable and scalable platform that can promote and increase mental health in communities, through facilitation by lay community health workers.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Feasibility of Group Problem Management Plus (PM+) to improve mental health and functioning of adults in earthquake-affected communities in Nepal

AIMS

Psychological interventions that are brief, acceptable, effective and can be delivered by non-specialists are especially necessary in low- and middle-income countries, where mental health systems are unable to address the high level of psychosocial needs. Problem Management Plus (PM+) is a five-session intervention designed for those impaired by psychological distress while living in communities affected by adversity. Individual PM+ has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing distress in Kenya and Pakistan, and a group version of PM+ (Group PM+) was effective for conflict-affected women in Pakistan. This paper describes a feasibility and acceptability trial of locally adapted Group PM+ for women and men in an earthquake-affected region of rural Nepal.

METHODS

In this feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial, participants in the experimental arm were offered five sessions of Group PM+ and participants in the control arm received enhanced usual care (EUC), which entailed brief psycho-education and providing referral options to primary care services with health workers trained in the mental health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG). A mixed-methods design was used to assess the feasibility and acceptability of Group PM+. Feasibility was assessed with criteria including fidelity and retention of participants. Acceptability was assessed through in-depth interviews with participants, family members, programme staff and other stakeholders. The primary clinical outcome was depression symptoms assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) administered at baseline and 8-8.5 weeks post-baseline (i.e. after completion of Group PM+ or EUC).

RESULTS

We recruited 121 participants (83% women and 17% men), with equal allocation to the Group PM+ and EUC arms (1:1). Group PM+ was delivered over five 2.5-3 hour sessions by trained and supervised gender-matched local non-specialists, with an average attendance of four out of five sessions. The quantitative and qualitative results demonstrated feasibility and acceptability for non-specialists to deliver Group PM+. Though the study was not powered to assess for effectiveness, for all five key outcome measures, including the primary clinical outcome, the estimated mean improvement was larger in the Group PM+ arm than the EUC arm.

CONCLUSION

The intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants, family members, and programme staff. The communities and participants found the intervention to be beneficial. Because feasibility and acceptability were established in this trial, a fully powered randomised controlled trial will be conducted for larger scale implementation to determine the effectiveness of the intervention in Nepal.

Scaling-up psychological interventions in resource-poor settings: training and supervising peer volunteers to deliver the 'Thinking Healthy Programme' for perinatal depression in rural Pakistan

BACKGROUND

There is a scarcity of specialist trainers and supervisors for psychosocial interventions in low- and middle-income countries. A cascaded model of training and supervision was developed to sustain delivery of an evidence-based peer-delivered intervention for perinatal depression (the Thinking Healthy Programme) in rural Pakistan. The study aimed to evaluate the model.

METHODS

Mixed methods were employed as part of a randomised controlled trial of the intervention. Quantitative data consisted of the peers' competencies assessed during field training and over the implementation phase of the intervention, using a specially developed checklist. Qualitative data were collected from peers and their trainers through 11 focus groups during the second and third year of intervention rollout.

RESULTS

Following training, 43 peers out of 45 (95%) achieved at least a 'satisfactory' level of competency (scores of ⩾70% on the Quality and Competency Checklist). Of the cohort of 45 peers initially recruited 34 (75%) were retained over 3 years and showed sustained or improved competencies over time. Qualitatively, the key factors contributing to peers' competency were use of interactive training and supervision techniques, the trainer-peer relationship, and their cultural similarity. The partnership with community health workers and use of primary health care facilities for training and supervision gave credibility to the peers in the community.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that lay-workers such as peers can be trained and supervised to deliver a psychological intervention using a cascaded model, thus addressing the barrier of scarcity of specialist trainers and supervisors.

Correction: Impact of a Participatory Intervention with Women's Groups on Psychological Distress among Mothers in Rural Bangladesh: Secondary Analysis of a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110697.].

Mother-to-mother therapy in India and Pakistan: adaptation and feasibility evaluation of the peer-delivered Thinking Healthy Programme

BACKGROUND

Perinatal depression is highly prevalent in South Asia. Although effective and culturally feasible interventions exist, a key bottleneck for scaled-up delivery is lack of trained human resource. The aim of this study was to adapt an evidence-based intervention so that local women from the community (peers) could be trained to deliver it, and to test the adapted intervention for feasibility in India and Pakistan.

METHODS

The study was conducted in Rawalpindi, Pakistan and Goa, India. To inform the adaptation process, qualitative data was collected through 7 focus groups (four in Pakistan and three in India) and 61 in-depth interviews (India only). Following adaptation, the intervention was delivered to depressed mothers (20 in Pakistan and 24 in India) for six months through 8 peers in Pakistan and nine in India. Post intervention data was collected from depressed mothers and peers through 41 in-depth interviews (29 in Pakistan and 12 in India) and eight focus groups (one in Pakistan and seven in India). Data was analysed using Framework Analysis approach.

RESULTS

Most mothers perceived the intervention to be acceptable, useful, and viewed the peers as effective delivery-agents. The simple format using vignettes, pictures and everyday terms to describe distress made the intervention easy to understand and deliver. The peers were able to use techniques for behavioural activation with relative ease. Both the mothers and peers found that shared life-experiences and personal characteristics greatly facilitated the intervention-delivery. A minority of mothers had concerns about confidentiality and stigma related to their condition, and some peers felt the role was emotionally challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates the feasibility of using peers to provide interventions for perinatal depression in two South Asian settings. Peers can be a potential resource to deliver evidence-based psychosocial interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Pakistan Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111915 (9 April 2014), India Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02104232 (1 April 2014).

Health system and community level interventions for improving antenatal care coverage and health outcomes

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends at least four antenatal care (ANC) visits for all pregnant women. Almost half of pregnant women worldwide, and especially in developing countries do not receive this amount of care. Poor attendance of ANC is associated with delivery of low birthweight babies and more neonatal deaths. ANC may include education on nutrition, potential problems with pregnancy or childbirth, child care and prevention or detection of disease during pregnancy.This review focused on community-based interventions and health systems-related interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of health system and community interventions for improving coverage of antenatal care and other perinatal health outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Trials of any interventions to improve ANC coverage were eligible for inclusion. Trials were also eligible if they targeted specific and related outcomes, such as maternal or perinatal death, but also reported ANC coverage.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 trials involving approximately 400,000 women. Some trials tested community-based interventions to improve uptake of antenatal care (media campaigns, education or financial incentives for pregnant women), while other trials looked at health systems interventions (home visits for pregnant women or equipment for clinics). Most trials took place in low- and middle-income countries, and 29 of the 34 trials used a cluster-randomised design. We assessed 30 of the 34 trials as of low or unclear overall risk of bias. Comparison 1: One intervention versus no interventionWe found marginal improvements in ANC coverage of at least four visits (average odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.22; participants = 45,022; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 52%; high quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis with a more conservative intra-cluster correlation co-efficient (ICC) gave similar marginal results. Excluding one study at high risk of bias shifted the marginal pooled estimate towards no effect. There was no effect on pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.08; participants = 114,930; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; studies = 15; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 58%; moderate quality evidence) or low birthweight (average OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 5%; high quality evidence). Single interventions led to marginal improvements in the number of women who delivered in health facilities (average OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15; studies = 10; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; high quality evidence), and in the proportion of women who had at least one ANC visit (average OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.79; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.24; I² = 76%; moderate quality evidence). Results for ANC coverage (at least four and at least one visit) and for perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Single interventions did not improve the proportion of women receiving tetanus protection (average OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; studies = 8; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 57%). No study reported onintermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 2: Two or more interventions versus no interventionWe found no improvements in ANC coverage of four or more visits (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.21; participants = 7840; studies = six; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10; I² = 48%; low quality evidence) or pregnancy-related deaths (average OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.26; participants = 13,756; studies = three; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). However, combined interventions led to improvements in ANC coverage of at least one visit (average OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.17; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), perinatal mortality (average OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.95; studies = five; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.06; I² = 83%; moderate quality evidence) and low birthweight (average OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.80; studies = two; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.00; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). Meta-analyses for both ANC coverage four or more visits and perinatal mortality had substantial statistical heterogeneity. Combined interventions improved the proportion of women who had tetanus protection (average OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.87; studies = 3; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.01; I² = 33%). No trial in this comparison reported on intermittent prophylactic treatment for malaria. Comparison 3: Two interventions compared head to head. No trials found. Comparison 4: One intervention versus a combination of interventionsThere was no difference in ANC coverage (four or more visits and at least one visit), pregnancy-related deaths, deliveries in a health facility or perinatal mortality. No trials in this comparison reported on low birthweight orintermittent prophylactic treatment of malaria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for practice - Single interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit and four or more visits) and deliveries in health facilities. Combined interventions may improve ANC coverage (at least one visit), reduce perinatal mortality and reduce the occurrence of low birthweight. The effects of the interventions are unrelated to whether they are community or health system interventions. Implications for research - More details should be provided in reporting numbers of events, group totals and the ICCs used to adjust for cluster effects. Outcomes should be reported uniformly so that they are comparable to commonly-used population indicators. We recommend further cluster-RCTs of pregnant women and women in their reproductive years, using combinations of interventions and looking at outcomes that are important to pregnant women, such as maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality, alongside the explanatory outcomes along the pathway of care: ANC coverage, the services provided during ANC and deliveries in health facilities.