ArticlePloS one2026
Stakeholder perspectives on the anticipated acceptability of low-intensity psychological interventions in Java, Indonesia: A theoretically framed qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDepression and anxiety remain major, largely unaddressed drivers of disability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where scarce resources and persistent stigma constrain access to care. Scalable solutions are urgently needed. Low-intensity psychological interventions, delivered by trained non-specialists offer a promising pathway to close the treatment gap. This study examines the prospective acceptability of these interventions in Java, Indonesia, an exemplar of an under resourced health system, to guide targeted cultural adaptation and inform optimal implementation.
methodsUsing a qualitative descriptive design guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), we conducted semi-structured interviews (n = 33) with people experiencing anxiety and depression and 21 focus groups with families (n = 34), health workers (n = 36), and community/religious leaders (n = 37) across 12 sites in Java. Data were collected in Bahasa/local languages, transcribed, translated, and analysed using TFA informed Framework Analysis. 5% of translations were independently back-verified. Stakeholder workshops and advisory panels shaped study design and interpretation.
resultsLow mental health literacy and stigma undermined intervention coherence and affective attitude, with many conflating LIPIs with general counselling. Help-seeking was often delayed until distress became severe, reflecting limited understanding of mental health problems and available support. Despite these challenges, strong perceptions of effectiveness and positive affective attitudes were driven by cultural values of self-reliance and community support. Concerns centered on ethicality, particularlyprivacy risks and fear of social judgment, alongside undercertainty regarding the role of traditional healers and the burden associated with time and workload demands. Trust in lay health workers was high in rural areas but more variable in urban contexts.
conclusionFindings highlight that cultural, structural, and interpersonal factors shape anticipated intervention acceptability. While stigma and low literacy remain barriers, strong perceived need and cultural alignment suggest the potential for promising subsequent uptake. Addressing privacy, role clarity, and logistical burden through tailored adaptations and partnerships is critical. This study offers one of the first theoretically framed qualitative explorations of LIPI acceptability in Southeast Asia, highlighting culturally congruent pathways for subsequent LMIC implementation.
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.