Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31534475›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2019

Delivering maternal mental health through peer volunteers: a 5-year report.

Najia Atif, Amina Bibi, Anum Nisar, Shaffaq Zulfiqar, Ikhlaq Ahmed, Katherine LeMasters, Ashley Hagaman, Siham Sikander, Joanna Maselko, Atif Rahman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

10 authors.

Najia Atif1Human Development Research Foundation, Mandra, Gujar Khan, Pakistan.
Amina Bibi1Human Development Research Foundation, Mandra, Gujar Khan, Pakistan.
Anum Nisar1Human Development Research Foundation, Mandra, Gujar Khan, Pakistan.
Shaffaq Zulfiqar1Human Development Research Foundation, Mandra, Gujar Khan, Pakistan.
Ikhlaq Ahmed1Human Development Research Foundation, Mandra, Gujar Khan, Pakistan.
Katherine LeMasters2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Ashley Hagaman2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Siham Sikander1Human Development Research Foundation, Mandra, Gujar Khan, Pakistan.
Joanna Maselko2University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC USA.
Atif Rahman4Department of Psychological Sciences, Institute of Life and Human Sciences, University of Liverpool, Block B, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Dover Street, Liverpool, L69 3BX UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-4467

Funding

Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
Impact of Perinatal Depression treatment on child developmental outcomesR01HD075875 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MASELKO, JOANNA · 2014 to 2024
$5.2M
Addressing barriers to Scaling-up Perinatal Mental Health InterventionK43TW010399 · FIC · HUMAN DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH FOUNDATION · PI SIKANDER, SIHAM · 2016 to 2020
$391k
FIC NIH HHS K43 TW010399NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD075875
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaternal depression affects one in five women in low-and middle income countries (LMIC) and has significant economic and social impacts. Evidence-based psychosocial interventions delivered by non-specialist health workers are recommended as first-line management of the condition, and recent studies on such interventions from LMIC show promising results. However, lack of human resource to deliver the interventions is a major bottle-neck to scale-up, and much research attention has been devoted to 'task-sharing' initiatives. A

methodsThe study was conducted in rural Rawalpindi. We used mixed methods to evaluate the programme 5 years since its initiation. The competency of the peers in delivering the intervention was evaluated using a specially developed Quality and Competency Checklist, an observational tool used by trainers to rate a group session on key areas of competencies. In-depth interviews explored factors contributing to the peer volunteers' continued motivation and retention, as well as the key challenges faced.

resultsOur key findings are that about 70% of the peer volunteers inducted 5 years ago continued to be part of the programme, retaining their competency in delivering the intervention, with only token financial incentives. Factors contributing to sustained motivation included altruistic aspirations, enhanced social standing in the community, personal benefits to their own mental health, and the possibility for other avenues of employment. Long-term challenges included demotivation due to lack of certainty about the programme's future, increased requirement for financial incentivisation, the logistics of organising groups in the community, and resistance from some families to the need for ongoing care.

conclusionsThe programme, given the sustained motivation and competence of peer volunteers in delivering the intervention, has the potential for long-term sustainability in under-resourced settings and a candidate for scale-up.

Indexed as

Cognitive behaviour strategiesLow and middle income countriesMaternal depressionPeer volunteersPerinatal depressionPsychosocial interventionTask-shiftingThinking Healthy Programme

Identifiers

PMID31534475
PMCPMC6747744

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.