ReviewPLOS global public health2025
A guide to selecting psychological interventions that can be delivered by people who are not mental health specialists in low-resource settings.
Review in PLOS global public health, 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
Globally, most individuals with mental health conditions lack access to specialized care. One strategy to bridge this gap is training people who are not mental health professionals (non-specialists) to deliver brief, manualized psychological interventions, which have demonstrated effectiveness across diverse settings. However, selecting the most suitable intervention for specific populations, contexts, and psychological needs in low-resource settings can be challenging due to the growing number of possible interventions and the differences in evidence of benefits across them. To facilitate this decision-making process, we provide an overview of ten psychological interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in randomized controlled trials when delivered by non-specialists in low-resource settings for adults: Cognitive Processing Therapy, Common Elements Treatment Approach, Counseling for Alcohol Problems, Friendship Bench, Group Interpersonal Therapy, Healthy Activity Program, Problem Management Plus, Self-Help Plus, Step-by-Step, and the Thinking Healthy Programme. The interventions vary in settings where they have demonstrated effectiveness and the evidence for which conditions show benefit (e.g., depression, posttraumatic stress, substance use, general psychological distress). Considerations when selecting interventions also include the duration of treatment, ranging from 4 to 16 sessions, and the duration of training required for non-specialists, spanning from 5 to 12 days. This article, along with its visual summaries, serves as a guide to support selection of psychological interventions based on population needs, mental health conditions, and available resources.
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.