Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40605046›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of mental health systems2025

Characterizing modifications to the mental health gap action programme (mhGAP) intervention guide during implementation in low- and middle-income countries using the framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions: a systematic review of reviews.

Harikeerthan Raghuram, Akanksha Jayant Rajguru, Mythili Menon Pathiyil, Aakrushi Brahmbhatt, Anant Bhan, Jessica Spagnolo, John A Naslund

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of mental health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Transforming public mental health: a review on global trends, challenges, and pathways to change.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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.

Harikeerthan Raghuram *Sangath, Bhopal, India. harikeerthan.raghuram@sangath.in.
Akanksha Jayant Rajguru *AIIMS, New Delhi, India.
Mythili Menon PathiyilSangath, Bhopal, India.
Aakrushi BrahmbhattSangath, Bhopal, India.
Anant BhanSangath, Bhopal, India.
Jessica SpagnoloUniversité TÉLUQ, Québec, Canada.
John A NaslundDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.

Funding

NIMH NIH HHS 1U19MH113211
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) allocate a disproportionately small fraction of their healthcare budgets to mental health, leading to a treatment gap exceeding 75%. To address this disparity, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP), aiming to integrate mental healthcare into primary and community care settings. Central to this initiative is task-sharing: empowering non-specialist healthcare providers to detect and treat mental disorders. Adaptation and modification of mhGAP to the national and local contexts is an integral aspect of the guidelines.

methodsThis systematic review of reviews employs the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) to document and characterize modifications to mhGAP implementation in LMICs. The databases searched included Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Web of Science. Reviews selected in stage 1 were used to find empirical studies from which relevant data was extracted.

resultsNarrative synthesis suggests that modifications primarily focus on content, delivery, and training methods, with limited attention to scaling up. Modifications adopt top down, yet consultative and participatory approaches. There is a notable lack of reporting on challenges, processes, and outcomes. Recommendations have been made to expand FRAME, namely, sources of knowledge, financial and temporal resources employed during the process of modification.

conclusionModifications are essential for adapting interventions to diverse settings, yet they are often researcher-led with limited stakeholder involvement. Better documentation-particularly on challenges and outcomes-is needed. Strengthening frameworks like FRAME can improve reporting, optimize resources, and enhance implementation and scale-up in similar contexts.

Indexed as

Global mental healthImplementationLMICsMhGAPModificationSystematic review of reviewsTask-sharing

Identifiers

PMID40605046
PMCPMC12220222

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.