ArticleImplementation research and practice
Exploring the feasibility and public health impact of integrating a community-based recovery-oriented intervention for people living with schizophrenia in partnership with a tertiary care mental hospital in India.
Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mental health rehabilitation models for people with complex psychosis: a systematic review.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a priority need to make community-based care widely available for people living with schizophrenia (PLwS) in low- and middle-income countries. An innovative approach for increasing access could be to integrate clinical services available in tertiary care hospitals with community-based care through a task-sharing approach. We describe such an integrated intervention that was implemented at Tezpur in northeast India in collaboration with the Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi Regional Institute of Mental Health (LGBRIMH). Method: The objectives of the study were to illustrate the feasibility of integrating and implementing the intervention and to describe its individual, systemic, and public health impacts. Due to the limited resources available, we conducted a pragmatic single-arm longitudinal evaluation of the intervention cohort over 24 months. Results: Of the 239 PLwS enrolled in the intervention, 198 (83%) were followed up for 24 months, with nearly three-quarters reporting a >70% reduction in disabilities, most notably between 6 and 18 months. There was a marked reduction in unmet needs across multiple domains, and at 24 months, 62% of the cohort was engaged in individual jobs or other market-linked livelihood opportunities. There was greater uptake and retention with outpatient contacts at the LGBRIMH, and PLwS experienced a marked (82%) reduction in inpatient admissions rates, as compared to before enrolment. Over a period of 24 months, primary caregivers reported that their families experienced significantly fewer social difficulties such as unemployment, interpersonal conflicts, and social isolation. The intervention had a significant public health impact, with an estimated 51.8% effective treatment coverage rate for the integrated intervention. Conclusion: Our findings provide preliminary evidence of the feasibility of implementing the integrated intervention and its effectiveness. We believe that there is merit in further in-depth refinement and exploration of this implementation-related research and cost analysis while replicating the intervention in other tertiary care institutions.
Indexed as
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.