MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774250304 · doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1525-6

Process evaluation of the systematic medical appraisal, referral and treatment (SMART) mental health project in rural India

2017· article· en· W2774250304 on OpenAlex
Abha Tewari, Sudha Kallakuri, Siddhardha Devarapalli, Vivekanand Jha, Anushka Patel, Pallab K Maulik

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Psychiatry · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaThe Wellcome Trust DBT India AllianceDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaWellcome Trust
KeywordsMental healthMedicineIntervention (counseling)ReferralNursingPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Availability of basic mental health services is limited in rural areas of India. Health system and individual level factors such as lack of mental health professionals and infrastructure, poor awareness about mental health, stigma related to help seeking, are responsible for poor awareness and use of mental health services. We implemented a mental health services delivery model that leveraged technology and task sharing to facilitate identification and treatment of common mental disorders (CMDs) such as stress, depression, anxiety and suicide risk in rural areas of the state of Andhra Pradesh, India. The intervention was delivered by lay village health workers (Accredited Social Health Activists - ASHAs) and primary care doctors. An anti-stigma campaign was implemented prior to this activity. This paper reports the process evaluation of the intervention using mixed methods. METHODS: A mixed methods pre-post evaluation assessed the intervention using quantitative service usage analytics from the server, and qualitative interviews with different stakeholders. Barriers and facilitators in implementing the intervention were identified. RESULTS: Health service use increased significantly at post-intervention, ASHAs could followup 78.6% of those who had screened positive, and 78.6% of the 1243 Interactive Voice Response System calls made, were successful. Most respondents were aware of the intervention. They indicated that knowledge received through the intervention empowered them to approach ASHAs and share their mental health symptoms. ASHAs and doctors opined that EDSS was useful and easy to use. Medical camps organized in villages to increase access to the doctor were received positively by all. However, some aspects or facilitators of the intervention need to be improved, including network connectivity, booster training, anti-stigma campaigns, quality of mental health services provided by doctors, provision of psychotropic medications at primary health centers and frequency of health camps. CONCLUSION: The respondents' views helped to understand the barriers and facilitators for improving the likely effectiveness of the intervention using Andersen's Modified Behavioral Model of Health Services Use, and identify the mechanisms by which those factors affected mental health services uptake in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with Clinical Trials Registry India (Applied - 16/07/14-Ref2014/07/007256; registration received - 04/10/17-CTRI/2017/10/009992 ).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.383 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it