Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24188964›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2013

Short structured general mental health in service training programme in Kenya improves patient health and social outcomes but not detection of mental health problems - a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Rachel Jenkins, Caleb Othieno, Stephen Okeyo, Dan Kaseje, Julyan Aruwa, Henry Oyugi, Paul Bassett, Felix Kauye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Can a brief training intervention help improve mental health service delivery in South Africa?African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2021
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Rachel JenkinsWHO Collaborating Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, PO 35, King's College, De Crespigny Park, London, UK. Rachel@olan.org.
Caleb Othieno
Stephen Okeyo
Dan Kaseje
Julyan Aruwa
Henry Oyugi
Paul Bassett
Felix Kauye
Great Lakes University of Kisumu · KEUniversity of Malawi · MWUniversity of Nairobi · KE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

TRIAL

designA pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

methods

participantsClusters were primary health care clinics on the Ministry of Health list. Clients were eligible if they were aged 18 and over.

interventionsTwo members of staff from each intervention clinic received the training programme. Clients in both intervention and control clinics subsequently received normal routine care from their health workers.

objectiveTo examine the impact of a mental health inservice training on routine detection of mental disorder in the clinics and on client outcomes. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the rate of accurate routine clinic detection of mental disorder and the secondary outcome was client recovery over a twelve week follow up period. Randomisation: clinics were randomised to intervention and control groups using a table of random numbers. Blinding: researchers and clients were blind to group assignment.

resultsNumbers randomised: 49 and 50 clinics were assigned to intervention and control groups respectively. 12 GHQ positive clients per clinic were identified for follow up. Numbers analysed: 468 and 478 clients were followed up for three months in intervention and control groups respectively. OUTCOME: At twelve weeks after training of the intervention group, the rate of accurate routine clinic detection of mental disorder was greater than 0 in 5% versus 0% of the intervention and control groups respectively, in both the intention to treat analysis (p = 0.50) and the per protocol analysis (p =0.50). Standardised effect sizes for client improvement were 0.34 (95% CI = (0.01,0.68)) for the General Health Questionnaire, 0.39 ((95% CI = (0.22, 0.61)) for the EQ and 0.49 (95% CI = (0.11,0.87)) for WHODAS (using ITT analysis); and 0.43 (95% CI = (0.09,0.76)) for the GHQ, 0.44 (95% CI = (0.22,0.65)) for the EQ and 0.58 (95% CI = (0.18,0.97)) for WHODAS (using per protocol analysis). HARMS: None identified.

conclusionThe training programme did not result in significantly improved recorded diagnostic rates of mental disorders in the routine clinic consultation register, but did have significant effects on patient outcomes in routine clinical practice.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN53515024.

Identifiers

PMID24188964
PMCPMC4174904
OpenAlexW2143974917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.