ArticlePLOS global public health2022
How can we mainstream mental health in research engaging the range of Sustainable Development Goals? A theory of change.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Researchers' Mental Health and Quality of Life: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Mainstreaming global mental health: Is there potential to embed psychosocial well-being impact in all global challenges research?Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental health is a leading cause of ill-health worldwide, disproportionately affects low-and-middle-income countries and, increasingly, is considered relevant across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Hence, we ask: How can we mainstream mental health in research engaging the range of SDGs? We use the UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) as a case study. In a previous scoping review, we purposefully sampled non-mental health focused GCRF grants for diversity from 2015 until May-end 2020 (N = 36). In the present study, the principal investigator of each grant in this sample was invited to interview (11 accepting). Snowballing, our networks, and returning to the funding archive secured a further 15 interviews sampled for diversity (Final sample: 13 UK researchers and 13 of their overseas collaborators). A thematic analysis of this data organised key information into a trajectory from the challenges of incorporating mental health impact, to how these challenges might be overcome and, finally, to support needs. This analysis was then organised into a Theory of Change designed to promote the mainstreaming of mental health in global challenges research. We outline the implications for global challenges researchers, mental health practitioners, and global challenge research funders. One important implication is that we provide evidence to encourage funders to engage with the desire of researchers to contribute more broadly to the wellbeing of the communities with whom they work.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.