MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6939353849 · doi:10.60692/07dtc-twm75

The Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Partnership (SHARP) for Mental Health Capacity Building: a program protocol for building implementation science and mental health research and policymaking capacity in Malawi and Tanzania

2019· article· en· W6939353849 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsResearch Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacity buildingGeneral partnershipMental healthMentorshipTanzaniaGlobal mental healthProtocol (science)Health services researchProgram evaluation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health (MH) disorders in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) account for a large proportion of disease burden. While efficacious treatments exist, only 10% of those in need are able to access care. This treatment gap is fueled by structural determinants including inadequate resource allocation and prioritization, both rooted in a lack of research and policy capacity. The goal of the Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Partnership for Mental Health Capacity Building (SHARP), based in Malawi and Tanzania, is to address those research and policy-based determinants.SHARP aims to (1) build implementation science skills and expertise among Malawian and Tanzanian researchers in the area of mental health; (2) ensure that Malawian and Tanzanian policymakers and providers have the knowledge and skills to effectively apply research findings on evidence-based mental health programs to routine practice; and (3) strengthen dialogue between researchers, policymakers, and providers leading to efficient and sustainable scale-up of mental health services in Malawi and Tanzania. SHARP comprises five capacity building components: introductory and advanced short courses, a multifaceted dialogue, on-the-job training, pilot grants, and "mentor the mentors" courses.Program evaluation includes measuring dose delivered and received, participant knowledge and satisfaction, as well as academic output (e.g., conference posters or presentations, manuscript submissions, grant applications). The SHARP Capacity Building Program aims to make a meaningful contribution in pursuit of a model of capacity building that could be replicated in other LMICs. If impactful, the SHARP Capacity Building Program could increase the knowledge, skills, and mentorship capabilities of researchers, policymakers, and providers regarding effective scale up of evidence-based MH treatment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.164
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1640.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0060.010
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.010

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 head0.380
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.105 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicMental Health Treatment and Access→French-language works237,207→