ReviewAdministration and policy in mental health2026
A Literature Review on the Role of Paraprofessionals in Delivering Brief Psychological Interventions.
Review in Administration and policy in mental health, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global demand for mental health services exceeds available resources, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where access remains limited. Even in high-resource nations, many individuals still lack adequate care, a gap exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Brief psychological interventions (BPIs) offer a structured, short-term therapeutic approach to address this need. Typically delivered in fewer than ten sessions, BPIs incorporate evidence-based therapy components and can be administered by paraprofessionals, non-credentialed individuals trained to provide mental health support. This review synthesizes research on paraprofessionally delivered BPIs by describing study characteristics across populations, settings, and intervention modalities, characterizing the paraprofessional workforce, and summarizing reported mental health outcomes and patterns of effectiveness. A PsycINFO and PubMed search identified 47 articles, including 45 unique studies. To provide a clearer picture of effectiveness, box-score analyses were conducted on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pilot/feasibility RCTs. Findings indicate that paraprofessional-delivered BPIs, particularly those grounded in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and delivered remotely, are consistently effective across diverse populations and contexts. The evidence base is strongest for adult populations and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) outcomes, with weaker support for adolescents and school-based programs. Paraprofessionals' cultural and community alignment also enhanced engagement and reduced stigma-related barriers. Nonetheless, inconsistencies in training, supervision, intervention fidelity, and recruitment criteria present challenges for scalability. This review highlights the absence of a rigorously tested definition of BPIs and the lack of consensus on the term paraprofessional. It underscores the need for standardized training and supervision guidelines to ensure fidelity and sustainability. Further research is essential to refine best practices and optimize paraprofessionals' integration into mental health systems, thereby improving accessibility and equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41243086What 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.