Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32028910›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2020

Feasibility and acceptability of a novel community-based mental health intervention delivered by community volunteers in Maharashtra, India: the Atmiyata programme.

Kaustubh Joag, Laura Shields-Zeeman, Nandita Kapadia-Kundu, Rama Kawade, Madhumitha Balaji, Soumitra Pathare

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kaustubh JoagCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, 411004, India. kaustubh@cmhlp.org.ORCID 0000-0003-3683-1159
Laura Shields-ZeemanTrimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction), Da Costakade 45, 3521, VS, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Nandita Kapadia-KunduJohns Hopkins Centre for Communication Programs, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21202, USA.
Rama KawadeCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, 411004, India.
Madhumitha BalajiCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, 411004, India.
Soumitra PathareCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, 411004, India.
Indian Law Institute · INJohns Hopkins University · USTrimbos Institute · NL

Funding

Grand Challenges Canada 0327-04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany community-based intervention models for mental health and wellbeing have undergone robust experimental evaluation; however, there are limited accounts of the implementation of these evidence-based interventions in practice. Atmiyata piloted the implementation of a community-led intervention to identify and understand the challenges of delivering such an intervention. The goal of the pilot evaluation is to identify factors important for larger-scale implementation across an entire district in India. This paper presents the results of a feasibility and acceptability study of the Atmiyata intervention piloted in Nashik district, Maharashtra, India between 2013 and 2015.

methodsA mixed methods approach was used to evaluate the Atmiyata intervention. First, a pre-post survey conducted with 215 cases identified with a GHQ cut-off 6 using a 3-month interval. Cases enrolled into the study in one randomly selected month (May-June 2015). Secondly, a quasi-experimental, pre-post design was used to conduct a population-based survey in the intervention and control areas. A randomly selected sample (panel) of 827 women and 843 men age between 18 to 65 years were interviewed to assess the impact of the Atmiyata intervention on common mental disorders. Finally, using qualitative methods, 16 Champions interviewed to understand an implementation processes, barriers and facilitators.

resultsOf the 215 participants identified by the Champions as being distressed or having a common mental disorder (CMD), n = 202 (94.4%) had a GHQ score at either sub-threshold level for CMD or above at baseline. Champions accurately identified people with emotional distress and in need of psychological support. After a 6-session counselling provided by the Champions, the percentage of participants with a case-level GHQ score dropped from 63.8 to 36.8%. The second sub-intervention consisted of showing films on Champions' mobile phones to raise community awareness regarding mental health. Films consisted of short scenario-based depictions of problems commonly experienced in villages (alcohol use and domestic violence). Champions facilitated access to social benefits for people with disability. Retention of Atmiyata Champions was high; 90.7% of the initial selected champions continued to work till the end of the project. Champions stated that they enjoyed their work and found it fulfilling to help others. This made them willing to work voluntarily, without pay. The semi-structured interviews with champions indicated that persons in the community experienced reduced symptoms and improved social, occupational and family functioning for problems such as depression, domestic violence, alcohol use, and severe mental illness.

conclusionsThis study shows that community-led interventions using volunteers from rural neighbourhoods can serve as a locally feasible and acceptable approach to facilitating access social welfare benefits, as well as reducing distress and symptoms of depression and anxiety in a low and middle-income country context. The intervention draws upon social capital in a community to engage and empower community members to address mental health problems. A robust evaluation methodology is needed to test the efficacy of such a model when it is implemented at scale.

Indexed as

Community Mental Health ServicesMental DisordersVolunteersAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHelping BehaviorHumansIndiaMaleMental HealthRural PopulationCommon mental disordersCommunity-based interventionCommunity mental healthDistressLow and middle-income countries

Identifiers

PMID32028910
PMCPMC7006077
OpenAlexW3012829668

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.