Browsing by Author "Graham Thornicroft"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health
    (BMJ Glob. Health, 2021) Nadine Seward; Charlotte Hanlon; Saba Hinrichs-Kraples; Crick Lund; Jamie Murdoch; Tatiana Taylor Salisbury; Ruth Verhey; Rahul Shidhaye; Graham Thornicroft; Ricardo Araya; Nick Sevdalis
    Implementation research is a multidisciplinary field that addresses the complex phenomenon of how context influences our ability to deliver evidence-informed healthcare. There is increasing realisation of the importance of applying robust implementation research to scale-up life-saving interventions that meet health-related sustainable development goals. However, the lack of high-quality implementation research is impeding our ability to meet these targets, globally. Within implementation research, theory refers to the proposed hypothesis and/or explanation of how an intervention is expected to interact with the local context and actors to bring about change. Although there is increasing interest in applying theory to understand how and why implementation programmes work in real-world settings, global health actors still tend to favour impact evaluations conducted in controlled environments. This may, in part, be due to the relative novelty as well as methodological complexity of implementation research and the need to draw on divergent disciplines, including epidemiology, implementation science and social sciences. Because of this, implementation research is faced with a particular set of challenges about how to reconcile different ways of thinking and constructing knowledge about healthcare interventions. To help translate some of the ambiguity surrounding how divergent theoretical approaches and methods contribute to implementation research, we draw on our multidisciplinary expertise in the field, particularly in global health. We offer an overview of the different theoretical approaches and describe how they are applied to continuously select, monitor and evaluate implementation strategies throughout the different phases of implementation research. In doing so, we offer a relatively brief, user-focused guide to help global health actors implement and report on evaluation of evidence-based and scalable interventions, programmes and practices.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    An integrated community and primary healthcare worker intervention to reduce stigma and improve management of common mental disorders in rural India: protocol for the SMART Mental Health programme
    (Trials, 2021) Mercian Daniel; Pallab K. Maulik; Sudha Kallakuri; Amanpreet Kaur; Siddhardha Devarapalli; Ankita Mukherjee; Amritendu Bhattacharya; Laurent Billot; Graham Thornicroft; Devarsetty Praveen; Usha Raman
    Background: Around 1 in 7 people in India are impacted by mental illness. The treatment gap for people with mental disorders is as high as 75-95%. Health care systems, especially in rural regions in India, face substantial challenges to address these gaps in care, and innovative strategies are needed. Methods: We hypothesise that an intervention involving an anti-stigma campaign and a mobile-technology-based electronic decision support system will result in reduced stigma and improved mental health for adults at high risk of common mental disorders. It will be implemented as a parallel-group cluster randomised, controlled trial in 44 primary health centre clusters servicing 133 villages in rural Andhra Pradesh and Haryana. Adults aged >= 18 years will be screened for depression, anxiety and suicide based on Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Generalised Anxiety Disorders (GAD-7) scores. Two evaluation cohorts will be derived-a high-risk cohort with elevated PHQ-9, GAD-7 or suicide risk and a non-high-risk cohort comprising an equal number of people not at elevated risk based on these scores. Outcome analyses will be conducted blinded to intervention allocation. Expected outcomes: The primary study outcome is the difference in mean behaviour scores at 12 months in the combined 'high-risk' and 'non-high-risk' cohort and the mean difference in PHQ-9 scores at 12 months in the 'high-risk' cohort. Secondary outcomes include depression and anxiety remission rates in the high-risk cohort at 6 and 12 months, the proportion of high-risk individuals who have visited a doctor at least once in the previous 12 months, and change from baseline in mean stigma, mental health knowledge and attitude scores in the combined non-high-risk and high-risk cohort. Trial outcomes will be accompanied by detailed economic and process evaluations. Significance: The findings are likely to inform policy on a low-cost scalable solution to destigmatise common mental disorders and reduce the treatment gap for under-served populations in low-and middle-income country settings.