Article

Barriers to improvement of mental health services in low-income and middle-income countries.

Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 10/2007; 370(9593):1164-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61263-X
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Despite the publication of high-profile reports and promising activities in several countries, progress in mental health service development has been slow in most low-income and middle-income countries. We reviewed barriers to mental health service development through a qualitative survey of international mental health experts and leaders. Barriers include the prevailing public-health priority agenda and its effect on funding; the complexity of and resistance to decentralisation of mental health services; challenges to implementation of mental health care in primary-care settings; the low numbers and few types of workers who are trained and supervised in mental health care; and the frequent scarcity of public-health perspectives in mental health leadership. Many of the barriers to progress in improvement of mental health services can be overcome by generation of political will for the organisation of accessible and humane mental health care. Advocates for people with mental disorders will need to clarify and collaborate on their messages. Resistance to decentralisation of resources must be overcome, especially in many mental health professionals and hospital workers. Mental health investments in primary care are important but are unlikely to be sustained unless they are preceded or accompanied by the development of community mental health services, to allow for training, supervision, and continuous support for primary care workers. Mobilisation and recognition of non-formal resources in the community must be stepped up. Community members without formal professional training and people who have mental disorders and their family members, need to partake in advocacy and service delivery. Population-wide progress in access to humane mental health care will depend on substantially more attention to politics, leadership, planning, advocacy, and participation.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
236 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although the prevalence of mental health disorders in Nigeria is comparable to most developed countries, access to mental health care in Nigeria is limited. Improving access to care requires innovative approaches that deliver mental health interventions at the community level. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of integrating mental health screening into an existing community-based program for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV targeted at pregnant women and their male partners.
    Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 09/2014; · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nepal is experiencing a significant 'treatment gap' in mental health care. People with mental disorders do not always receive appropriate treatment due to a range of structural and individual issues, including stigma and poverty. The PRIME (Programme for Improving Mental Health Care) programme has developed a mental health care plan to address this issue in Nepal and four other developing countries. This study aims to inform the development of this comprehensive care plan by investigating the perceptions of stakeholders at different levels of the care system in the district of Chitwan in southern Nepal: health professionals, lay workers and community members. It focuses specifically on issues of demand and access to care, and aims to identify barriers and potential solutions for reaching people with priority mental disorders.
    BMC International Health and Human Rights 08/2014; 14(1):22. · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Collaborative care is a complex intervention based on chronic disease management models and is effective in the management of depression. However, there is still uncertainty about which components of collaborative care are effective. We used meta-regression to identify factors in collaborative care associated with improvement in patient outcomes (depressive symptoms) and the process of care (use of anti-depressant medication). Methods and Findings Systematic review with meta-regression. The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group trials registers were searched from inception to 9th February 2012. An update was run in the CENTRAL trials database on 29th December 2013. Inclusion criteria were: randomised controlled trials of collaborative care for adults ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of depression or mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. Random effects meta-regression was used to estimate regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between study level covariates and depressive symptoms and relative risk (95% CI) and anti-depressant use. The association between anti-depressant use and improvement in depression was also explored. Seventy four trials were identified (85 comparisons, across 21,345 participants). Collaborative care that included psychological interventions predicted improvement in depression (β coefficient −0.11, 95% CI −0.20 to −0.01, p = 0.03). Systematic identification of patients (relative risk 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81, p = 0.004) and the presence of a chronic physical condition (relative risk 1.32, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.65, p = 0.02) predicted use of anti-depressant medication. Conclusion Trials of collaborative care that included psychological treatment, with or without anti-depressant medication, appeared to improve depression more than those without psychological treatment. Trials that used systematic methods to identify patients with depression and also trials that included patients with a chronic physical condition reported improved use of anti-depressant medication. However, these findings are limited by the observational nature of meta-regression, incomplete data reporting, and the use of study aggregates.
    PLoS ONE 09/2014; 9:e108114. · 3.53 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
1,178 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014