ArticleBMJ open2025
Helping people with psychosis with a low-cost intervention DIALOG+: protocol for the economic evaluation in a randomised control trial in India and Pakistan.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 69%-89% of people with severe mental illnesses, particularly psychosis, experience a treatment gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to factors such as low public spending on health and weak healthcare systems. The PIECEs project aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a solution-focused resource-oriented approach (DIALOG+) for improving the quality of life and mental well-being of people with psychosis in India and Pakistan.
methodsThe research design of this analysis is an economic evaluation piggybacked on the PIECEs randomised control trial to test the feasibility of DIALOG+ in India and Pakistan. It implies a cost-utility analysis with a health system perspective. The costs include the cost of the intervention, the cost of healthcare providers and the cost to the household. The primary outcome will be quality-adjusted life years. Incremental cost, incremental effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be calculated using linear regression models with a hierarchical data structure. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis will be carried out to test for the uncertainty surrounding the estimates of cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence of a patient-centred approach to improve the quality of community-based care for people with psychosis in India and Pakistan. The economic evaluation will support efforts to scale up low-cost healthcare interventions such as DIALOG+ to rural and unserved areas, which is otherwise challenging in the resource-constrained health systems in many LMICs.
conclusionThe evidence on the cost-effectiveness of DIALOG+ will contribute to efforts to improve community-based care and the quality of life for millions of people suffering from mental health problems in India and Pakistan who experience psychosis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by the Queen Mary Ethics of Research Committee (UK), Institutional Ethics Committee of SCARF (India), IRD's Independent Institutional Review Board (IRD_IRB_2021_01_005) (Pakistan), Karawan-e-Hayat Management Committee (Institutional Approval) (Pakistan), Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre Research Committee (NO.F.2-81/2021-GENL/60224/JPMC) (Pakistan), Aga Khan's Ethics Research Committee (2021-5933-17533) (Pakistan) and National Bio-Ethics Committee, Pakistan (Ref: No.4-87/NBC-774/22/2037 Date: 17 May 2022).The findings of this research will be widely disseminated through research publications and engagement with the communities and the healthcare providers in the public and not-for-profit sectors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13022816.
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.