Observational studyBMJ open2026
Adverse sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental healthcare in six low- and middle-income countries (MASC): a mixed-methods study with lessons for the future.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Health service utilization by people with psychosis during Peru's mental health reform and the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe
designAn observational study, using a mixed-methods convergent design triangulating data from (1) semistructured interviews or focus groups and/or a self-completed survey, (2) routine service utilisation data, (3) local grey literature and (4) expert consultation.
settingThe study was conducted in Chile, Ethiopia, Georgia, Nigeria, South Africa and Sri Lanka.
participants121 key informants.
resultsWe found clear evidence in all sites that the pandemic exacerbated pre-existing disadvantages experienced by people with MHCs and led to a deterioration in the availability and quality of care, especially psychosocial care. Alongside increased vulnerability to COVID-19, people with MHCs faced additional barriers to accessing prevention and treatment interventions compared with the general population. To varying extents, sites showed accelerated implementation of digital technologies, but with evidence of worsening inequities in access. In sites where primary care-based mental healthcare was more developed or prioritised, systems seemed more resilient and adaptive.
conclusionOur findings have the following implications. First, these mental health service reductions are clear examples of 'structural stigma', namely policy level decisions in healthcare which place a low priority upon services for people with MHCs. Second, integration of mental healthcare into all general healthcare settings is key to ensuring accessibility and parity of physical and mental healthcare. Third, digital innovations should be designed to strengthen and not fragment health systems. We discuss these findings in terms of anticipating such challenges for future pandemics and preparing layers of resilience.
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.