Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33903119›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based mental health2021

WHO mental health gap action programme (mhGAP) intervention guide: updated systematic review on evidence and impact.

Roxanne Keynejad, Jessica Spagnolo, Graham Thornicroft

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

131 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

71 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Roxanne KeynejadDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK Roxanne.1.keynejad@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4434-3526
Jessica SpagnoloDépartement des Sciences de la Santé Communautaire, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Graham ThornicroftDepartment of Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

COBALT: Comorbid Affective Disorders, AIDS/HIV, and Long Term HealthR01MH100470 · NIMH · KING'S COLLEGE LONDON · PI FAIRALL, LARA ROSEMARY, PETERSEN, INGE · 2013 to 2018
$2.0M
Medical Research Council MR/R023697/1Medical Research Council MR/S001255/1NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH100470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

questionThere is a large worldwide gap between the service need and provision for mental, neurological and substance use disorders. WHO's Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) intervention guide (IG), provides evidence-based guidance and tools for assessment and integrated management of priority disorders. Our 2017 systematic review identified 33 peer-reviewed studies describing mhGAP-IG implementation in low-income and middle-income countries. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, ScieELO, Cochrane, PubMed databases, 3ie, Google Scholar and citations of our review, on 24 November 2020. We sought evidence, experience and evaluations of the mhGAP-IG, app or mhGAP Humanitarian IG, from any country, in any language. We extracted data from included papers, but heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis.

findingsOf 2621 results, 162 new papers reported applications of the mhGAP-IG. They described mhGAP training courses (59 references), clinical applications (n=49), research uses (n=27), contextual adaptations (n=13), economic studies (n=7) and other educational applications (n=7). Most were conducted in the African region (40%) and South-East Asia (25%). Studies demonstrated improved knowledge, attitudes and confidence post-training and improved symptoms and engagement with care, post-implementation. Research studies compared mhGAP-IG-enhanced usual care with task-shared psychological interventions and adaptation studies optimised mhGAP-IG implementation for different contexts. Economic studies calculated human resource requirements of scaling up mhGAP-IG implementation and other educational studies explored its potential for repurposing.

conclusionsThe diverse, expanding global mhGAP-IG literature demonstrates substantial impact on training, patient care, research and practice. Priorities for future research should be less-studied regions, severe mental illness and contextual adaptation of brief psychological interventions.

Indexed as

adult psychiatrychild & adolescent psychiatrydepression & mood disordersschizophrenia & psychotic disorderssubstance misuse

Identifiers

PMID33903119
PMCPMC8311089

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.