MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037194984 · doi:10.1186/s13033-020-00379-2

WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG): the first pre-service training study

2020· article· en· W3037194984 on OpenAlexaff
Ashmita Chaulagain, Laura Pacione, Jibril Abdulmalik, Peter Hughes, О.О. Kopchak, Stanislav Chumak, J. S. MENDOZA, Kristine Avetisyan, Գայանե Ղազարյան, Khachatur Gasparyan, Eka Chkonia, Chiara Servili, Neerja Chowdhury, Ірина Пінчук, Myron Belfar, Anthony P. S. Guerrero, Liliya Panteleeva, Norbert Skokauskas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Systems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersKing's College LondonWorld Health Organization
KeywordsHealth administrationMental healthIntervention (counseling)Action (physics)Mental health serviceMedicineService (business)PsychologyTraining (meteorology)PsychiatryNursingPublic healthPsychotherapistBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing burden of mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders, a significant treatment gap for these disorders continues to exist across the world, and especially in low- and middle-income countries. To bridge the treatment gap, the World Health Organization developed and launched the Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) and the mhGAP Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG) to help train non-specialists to deliver care. Although the mhGAP-IG has been used in more than 100 countries for in-service training, its implementation in pre-service training, that is, training prior to entering caregiver roles, is very limited. AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study was to collect and present information about the global experience of academic institutions that have integrated WHO's mhGAP-IG into pre-service training. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using an electronic questionnaire, from December 2018 to June 2019. RESULTS: Altogether, eleven academic institutions across nine countries (Mexico, Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan) participated in this study. Five of the institutions have introduced the mhGAP-IG by revising existing curricula, three by developing new training programmes, and three have used both approaches. A lack of financial resources, a lack of support from institutional leadership, and resistance from some faculty members were the main obstacles to introducing this programme. Most of the institutions have used the mhGAP-IG to train medical students, while some have used it to train medical interns and residents (in neurology or family medicine) and nursing students. Use of the mhGAP-IG in pre-service training has led to improved knowledge and skills to manage mental health conditions. A majority of students and teaching instructors were highly satisfied with the mhGAP-IG. CONCLUSIONS: This study, for the first time, has collected evidence about the use of WHO's mhGAP-IG in pre-service training in several countries. It demonstrates that the mhGAP-IG can be successfully implemented to train a future cadre of medical doctors and health nurses.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health SystemsSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207