Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37289730›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2023

Atmiyata, a community champion led psychosocial intervention for common mental disorders: A stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in rural Gujarat, India.

Soumitra Pathare, Kaustubh Joag, Jasmine Kalha, Deepa Pandit, Sadhvi Krishnamoorthy, Ajay Chauhan, Laura Shields-Zeeman

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Soumitra PathareCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.ORCID 0000-0001-9311-9024
Kaustubh JoagCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Jasmine KalhaCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Deepa PanditCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Sadhvi KrishnamoorthyCentre for Mental Health Law and Policy, Indian Law Society, Pune, India.
Ajay ChauhanHospital for Mental Health, Ahmedabad, India.
Laura Shields-ZeemanTrimbos Institute (Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Indian Law Institute · INInstitute of Mental Health and Hospital · INUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile effective lay-health worker models for mental health care have been demonstrated through efficacy trials, there is limited evidence of the effectiveness of these models implemented in rural LMIC settings.

aimTo evaluate the impact of a volunteer community-led intervention on reduction in depression and anxiety symptoms and improvement in functioning, and social participation among people living in rural Gujarat, India.

methodsStepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial was used to assess the effectiveness of delivery of psychosocial intervention across 645 villages in Mehsana district of Gujarat, India between April 2017 and August 2019. The primary outcome was an improvement in depression and/or anxiety symptoms assessed using GHQ-12 at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were improvement in (a) depression and anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire, (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) & Self-Reporting Questionnaire-20 (SRQ-20); b) quality of life (EQ- 5D); c) functioning (WHO-DAS-12), and social participation (Social Participation Scale SPS). Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the independent effect of the intervention.

resultsOut of a total of 1191 trial participants (608- intervention & 583-control), 1014 (85%) completed 3-month follow-up. In an adjusted analysis, participants in the intervention condition showed significant recovery from symptoms of depression or anxiety (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.6; p<0.05) at the end of 3-months, with effects sustained at 8-month follow-up (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.6 to 5.9). Intervention participants had improved scores on the PHQ-9 (Adjusted mean difference (AMD) -1.8; 95%CI -3.0 to -0.6), and SRQ-20 (AMD -1.7; 95%CI -2.7 to -0.6), at 3-months and PHQ-9, GAD-7, SRQ-20, EQ-5D and WHO-DAS at 8 months follow-up.

conclusionFindings suggest that Atmiyata had a significant effect on recovery from symptoms of depression and anxiety with sustained effects at 8-month follow-up.

trial registrationTrial registration details. The trial was registered prospectively with the "Clinical Trial Registry in India" (registry number: CTRI/2017/03/008139).

Indexed as

Mental DisordersPsychosocial InterventionAnxietyAnxiety DisordersHumansIndiaQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID37289730
PMCPMC10249851
OpenAlexW4379931321

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.