Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j5sqr Total loading time: 1.228 Render date: 2022-09-26T01:33:14.613Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers

Part of: Editorials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2017

C. Hanlon*
Affiliation:
Addis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia King's College London, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, UK
M. Semrau
Affiliation:
King's College London, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, UK
A. Alem
Affiliation:
Addis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
S. Abayneh
Affiliation:
Addis Ababa University, College of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
J. Abdulmalik
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, Neuroscience and Substance Abuse, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
S. Docrat
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, Alan J Flisher Centre for Public Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
S. Evans-Lacko
Affiliation:
King's College London, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, UK Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
O. Gureje
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, WHO Collaborating Center for Research and Training in Mental Health, Neuroscience and Substance Abuse, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
M. Jordans
Affiliation:
King's College London, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, UK
H. Lempp
Affiliation:
King's College London, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Academic Rheumatology, London, UK
J. Mugisha
Affiliation:
Kyambogo University, Kampala, Uganda Butabika Hospital Emerald Project, Kampala, Uganda Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
I. Petersen
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural Health, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
R. Shidhaye
Affiliation:
Centre for Chronic Conditions and Injuries, Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi, India Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Netherlands
G. Thornicroft
Affiliation:
King's College London, Institute of Psychology, Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Health Service and Population Research Department, Centre for Global Mental Health, UK
*
*Address for correspondence: C. Hanlon, Department of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, College of Health Sciences Building, Tikur Anbessa Hospital, PO 9086, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. (Email: charlotte.hanlon@kcl.ac.uk)
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Efforts to support the scale-up of integrated mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) need to focus on building human resource capacity in health system strengthening, as well as in the direct provision of mental health care. In a companion editorial, we describe a range of capacity-building activities that are being implemented by a multi-country research consortium (Emerald: Emerging mental health systems in low- and middle-income countries) for (1) service users and caregivers, (2) service planners and policy-makers and (3) researchers in six LMICs (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, Nigeria, South Africa and Uganda). In this paper, we focus on the methodology being used to evaluate the impact of capacity-building in these three target groups. We first review the evidence base for approaches to evaluation of capacity-building, highlighting the gaps in this area. We then describe the adaptation of best practice for the Emerald capacity-building evaluation. The resulting mixed method evaluation framework was tailored to each target group and to each country context. We identified a need to expand the evidence base on indicators of successful capacity-building across the different target groups. To address this, we developed an evaluation plan to measure the adequacy and usefulness of quantitative capacity-building indicators when compared with qualitative evaluation. We argue that evaluation needs to be an integral part of capacity-building activities and that expertise needs to be built in methods of evaluation. The Emerald evaluation provides a potential model for capacity-building evaluation across key stakeholder groups and promises to extend understanding of useful indicators of success.

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Capacity-building for health system strengthening in global mental health

There has been a strong emphasis on building the capacity of general health workers to deliver mental health care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), with the development of evidence-based treatment guidelines (World Health Organization, 2016b ) and an expanding evidence base of the effectiveness of such capacity-building approaches (van Ginneken et al. Reference van Ginneken, Tharyan, Lewin, Rao, Meera, Pian, Chandrashekar and Patel2013). At the same time, there has been increasing awareness of the need to also strengthen the health system in order to improve access to, and the quality of, mental health care (Petersen et al. Reference Petersen, Marais, Abdulmalik, Ahuja, Alem, Chisholm, Egbe, Gureje, Hanlon, Lund, Shidhaye, Jordans, Kigozi, Mugisha, Upadhaya and Thornicroft2017). In addition to healthcare providers, three crucially important stakeholder groups for health system strengthening are: service users and caregivers, service planners and policy-makers, and researchers. In a companion editorial we describe a range of activities that are being implemented by the Emerald programme (Emerging mental health systems in LMICs: http://www.emerald-project.eu) (Semrau et al. Reference Semrau, Evans-Lacko, Alem, Ayuso-Mateos, Chisholm, Gureje, Hanlon, Jordans, Kigozi, Lempp, Lund, Petersen, Shidhaye and Thornicroft2015) to build capacity among these three key target groups to support system strengthening for scale-up of mental health. In this editorial, we discuss approaches to evaluating the impact of these capacity-building activities to ensure that they achieve their intended goals.

Evaluation of capacity-building: what is best practice?

Mental health service users and caregivers

In a systematic review of the literature, we identified several initiatives to increase the involvement of service users and caregivers in activities to strengthen the mental health system in LMICs, for example, in the areas of advocacy, quality control, training of health workers, policy development, service planning and research evaluation (Semrau et al. Reference Semrau, Lempp, Keynejad, Evans-Lacko, Mugisha, Raja, Lamichhane, Alem, Thornicroft and Hanlon2016). However, only four of the identified studies included an explicit evaluation of service user/caregiver involvement, and the methodological quality was considered to be low in most cases. Most evaluations focused on the impact of service user and/or caregiver involvement in the development of national level policies and plans, using qualitative methods or mixed qualitative-quantitative studies with service users, caregivers and service user representatives involved as subjects of research. An ecological study design examined the association between service user and/or caregiver involvement in development of mental health legislation and access to psychotropic medications, but such an approach is vulnerable to ecological bias (McBain et al. Reference McBain, Norton, Morris, Yasami and Betancourt2012). The other main group of evaluations focused on measurement of satisfaction with services, again with service users as subjects of research. Overall, there was a weak evidence base on the most effective models of building capacity of service users and caregivers to support involvement in mental health system strengthening in LMICs (Semrau et al. Reference Semrau, Lempp, Keynejad, Evans-Lacko, Mugisha, Raja, Lamichhane, Alem, Thornicroft and Hanlon2016). This is a missed opportunity because of the current global push to scale up person-centred and co-produced mental health services (World Health Organization, 2016a ). With better evidence, powerful arguments can be made to ensure that building the capacity of service users and caregivers to enable greater involvement in system issues (e.g., service development, monitoring and advocacy) become part and parcel of scale-up efforts.

Evidence from high-income country settings supports the use of participatory research with service users and caregivers for studies relating to mental health interventions, services and systems (Rose, Reference Rose2014), with limited examples from LMICs (Hann et al. Reference Hann, Pearson, Campbell, Sesay and Eaton2015). Potential benefits of involvement of service users and caregivers in the process of evaluation of capacity-building include ensuring that the goals of capacity-building are relevant and aligned with priorities, and that service users and caregivers are empowered through the process of co-production of care and knowledge. This leads to a greater chance of longer-term impact and sustainability of capacity-building efforts (Thornicroft & Tansella, Reference Thornicroft and Tansella2005; Rose, Reference Rose2014).

Service planners and policy-makers

A further systematic review was conducted to synthesise knowledge about evaluation of efforts to build the capacity of policy-makers and planners to strengthen the mental health system (Keynejad et al. Reference Keynejad, Semrau, Toynbee, Evans-Lacko, Lund, Gureje, Ndyanabangi, Courtin, Abdulmalik, Alem, Fekadu, Thornicroft and Hanlon2016). Rigorous evaluation was conducted in only a few of the identified studies. Evaluation approaches usually employed mixed methods. Lower quality evaluations were descriptive and not guided by any conceptual framework, whereas higher quality studies sought to combine various data sources, with one study making use of both an evaluator who was external to the programme, as well as an ‘insider’ evaluation (Patton, Reference Patton1997). Many of the capacity-building interventions for this target group involved long-term engagement and mentoring, with emphasis placed upon the need to develop sustainable, good quality relationships. Evaluation strategies need to incorporate these important indicators of a successful intervention, as well as capturing impacts on the health system.

Mental health researchers

Best practice guidelines for indicators of successful capacity-building for researchers in LMICs have been published (TDR/World Health Organization, 2011, 2016) and are better developed than the frameworks for evaluating capacity-building for other target groups. The ESSENCE framework recommends considering the impact of research capacity-building at the individual, organisational and sub-national or national levels, with emphasis given to understanding the country-specific relationships between these levels (TDR/World Health Organization, 2011). The selected indicators for measuring capacity-building success include a focus on publications and grants. The importance of publication as a hard outcome of capacity-building success has been echoed by others (Zachariah et al. Reference Zachariah, Reid, Van den Bergh, Dahmane, Kosgei, Hinderaker, Tayler-Smith, Manzi, Kizito, Khogali, Kumar, Baruani, Bishinga, Kilale, Nqobili, Patten, Sobry, Cheti, Nakanwagi, Enarson, Edginton, Upshur and Harries2013; Kohrt et al. Reference Kohrt, Upadhaya, Luitel, Maharjan, Kaiser, MacFarlane and Khan2014). The range of data sources that may be relevant and acceptable for evaluation of research capacity-building include: annual reports, mid-term and final interviews, publications, citation index, grant agreements, certificates of training and documentation of personal interactions (TDR/World Health Organization, 2011). A need has been identified for existing evaluative frameworks for capacity-building to be applied, tested and adapted for LMIC settings (Thornicroft et al. Reference Thornicroft, Cooper, Van Bortel, Kakuma and Lund2012).

Evaluation framework for the Emerald target groups

The Emerald capacity-building interventions are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. The Emerald programme capacity-building interventions

The guiding principles of capacity-building in the Emerald consortium were appropriateness, reciprocity and sustainability. These principles were based on recognition of the differing baseline contexts, capabilities and unmet needs of Emerald partners, the bi-directional flow of expertise in north-south partnerships and the imperative to work towards self-sufficiency in LMIC partner organisations.

A mixed quantitative and qualitative evaluation framework was developed for each target group, based on established best practice and the needs assessments conducted for each target group (Semrau et al. Reference Semrau, Alem, Abdulmalik, Docrat, Evans-Lacko, Gureje, Kigozi, Lempp, Lund, Petersen, Shidhaye, Thornicroft and Hanlon2017), and modified by the capacity-building goals, the nature of the specific interventions and the country context. The cross-country quantitative indicators of Emerald capacity-building success identified for each of the target groups are presented in Table 2. The evaluation framework will now be discussed in relation to the target groups.

Table 2. Emerald cross-country indicators for capacity-building of mental health service users and caregivers

Emerald evaluation of capacity-building for service users and caregivers

Low levels of literacy in many of the Emerald country sites meant that it was not possible to use self-completed questionnaires to assess the indicators of success. As well as the cost implications of interviewer-administered questionnaires, there was also concern that an interview format would lead to social desirability bias, for example, when measuring satisfaction with the capacity-building workshop. Another important adaptation for this target group was to evaluate change in understanding, e.g., ‘I understand about types of mental health problems’ (strongly disagree/disagree/don't know/agree/strongly agree), rather than change in knowledge.

Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted at baseline to identify priority goals for service user and caregiver interventions and capacity-building needs (Samudre et al. Reference Samudre, Shidhaye, Ahuja, Nanda, Khan, Evans-Lacko and Hanlon2016; Abayneh et al. Reference Abayneh, Lempp, Alem, Alemayehu, Esehtu, Lund, Semrau, Thornicroft and Hanlon2017; Gurung et al. Reference Gurung, Upadhyaya, Magar, Giri, Hanlon and Jordans2017). Follow-up qualitative interviews are planned in order to explore perceptions of the impact of Emerald capacity-building upon service user and caregiver involvement in mental health system strengthening, the level of empowerment and mobilisation, the experience of participation in capacity-building, perceived limitations to the capacity-building approach and recommendations on how to improve capacity-building efforts.

Two of the Emerald-linked Ph.D. students (in Ethiopia and India) focused their research on service user involvement in mental health system strengthening. Although not possible at the cross-country level, the Ph.D. students are using participatory research methods to develop, pilot and evaluate models of service user involvement, with the evaluation of capacity-building as a nested component. See Table 3.

Table 3. Service user involvement in Ethiopia: participatory research for mental health systems strengthening

Emerald evaluation of capacity-building for service planners and policy-makers

The hierarchical nature of relationships with policy-makers or service planners and the research team were apparent across the Emerald partner countries, which affected the nature of the evaluation that was appropriate and possible. As with service users and caregivers, tests of knowledge were considered to be unacceptable for service planners and policy-makers who participated in the short courses and were replaced by pre-post questionnaires examining understanding of mental health systems. Attitudinal change was felt to be of paramount importance in this target group, but also a sensitive area and so attitudinal measures were not used in several of the Emerald countries.

Questions exploring the extent to which organisational capacity-building needs had been met were nested within in-depth interviews being conducted with key informant planners and policy-makers for other objectives of the Emerald project (Petersen et al. Reference Petersen, Marais, Abdulmalik, Ahuja, Alem, Chisholm, Egbe, Gureje, Hanlon, Lund, Shidhaye, Jordans, Kigozi, Mugisha, Upadhaya and Thornicroft2017).

Emerald evaluation of capacity-building for mental health researchers

The Emerald cross-country indicators for research capacity-building were adapted from the ESSENCE framework (TDR/World Health Organization, 2011). An important indicator of equity and sustainability for research capacity-building was the percentage of course participants who were working in public sector institutions. From the inception of Emerald, each of the country teams emphasised the importance of becoming self-sufficient in delivery of short courses and so an indicator was included to capture the number of courses delivered without external assistance. In the revised ESSENCE framework (TDR/World Health Organization, 2016), corresponding authorship by LMIC partners was emphasised, but for Emerald-linked Ph.D. students first authorship was considered to be essential, and in some of the Emerald LMIC institutions corresponding authorship had no value in terms of professional recognition and promotion opportunities. The indicators for obtaining grants were expanded to measure involvement in system-related projects, which may not have required external funding but provided an indicator of local uptake of the training.

The measurement of quantitative indicators was supplemented by qualitative in-depth interviews with key informants from the Emerald LMIC research partner institutions as well as with participants in the short courses. The interview topic guides explored the extent to which Emerald had contributed to successful capacity-building in mental health systems research, and what could have made the capacity-building efforts more successful. Perspectives on the experience of being part of a multi-country research consortium were obtained from Ph.D. fellows and mid-level researchers through an anonymous online survey. This included feedback on the experience of annual meetings, the extent and usefulness of opportunities to present their work and receive feedback from other consortium members, and the opportunity to be part of a network of Ph.D. researchers working in the area of mental health systems.

Evaluating the adequacy of quantitative indicators of capacity-building success

Within Emerald, an evaluation of the adequacy of quantitative indicators in capturing capacity-building success is being conducted in relation to qualitative exploration. The analysis will include a focus on discrepant cases, for example, apparent low success of capacity-building on the basis of quantitative evaluation but high success identified through the qualitative study, or vice versa. The qualitative study will also probe explicitly around the adequacy of the quantitative indicators in capturing the benefits and limitations of the capacity-building activities from the perspectives of participants and key informants. After reviewing the findings, the Emerald consortium will come to an expert consensus on which indicators can be recommended as capturing important aspects of capacity-building success in this area.

Lessons learned and future directions

Capacity-building to strengthen mental health systems is a complex intervention. In the revised ESSENCE framework for research capacity-building (TDR/World Health Organization, 2016), use of a theoretical framework, for example Theory of Change (De Silva et al. Reference De Silva, Breuer, Lee, Asher, Chowdhary, Lund and Patel2014), is recommended to map out the complexity, ensure a participatory approach, guide the choice of indicators and drive evaluation priorities. The Theory of Change approach might be particularly beneficial for evaluation of capacity-building for policy-makers and planners, where policy and service configurations take time to change and upstream indicators of success are needed, as well as for service users and caregivers (Table 3). Although ESSENCE considers evaluation of the system-wide impact of research capacity-building, there is a need to incorporate capacity-building for other target groups to support the attainment of system wide goals.

Although reciprocity was a guiding principle of the Emerald capacity-building activities, this was not measured directly in our evaluation framework, which tended to focus on the capacity built within LMIC partners. Indicators of reciprocity within a research consortium might include measures of the extent to which participating high income country institutions draw on LMIC expertise to develop strategic directions in global health, contributions of LMIC partners to the design and delivery of curricula for Masters programmes in the high-income country partner institutions, student placements in LMIC partner projects and co-supervision of Masters and Ph.D. students. Longer-term outcomes of capacity-building based on reciprocity may include the incorporation of findings from LMIC partner projects into high-income country health systems.

We have tried to capture the potential benefits of participation in a multi-country research consortium per se through the online surveys of Ph.D. fellows and mid-level researchers, as well as through the qualitative interviews with research institution key informants; however, this evaluation approach could be strengthened through examination of the extent of co-authorship of publications between different consortium partners, and use of a satisfaction survey for all consortium members.

Evaluation of capacity-building efforts for mental health system strengthening can learn much from other areas of global health (Amuyunzu-Nyamongo et al. Reference Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, Owuor and Blanchard2013). However, specific competencies are required in the area of mental health (Ng et al. Reference Ng, Magidson, Hock, Joska, Fekadu, Hanlon, Galler, Safren, Borba, Fricchione and Henderson2016), particularly to achieve genuine participation of mental health service users.

Conclusion

Evidence-based capacity building is needed for mental health system strengthening in LMICs. Evaluation, therefore, needs to be an integral part of capacity-building activities. The field of global mental health is relatively young and there is a need to refine methods for evaluating capacity-building across target groups and to equip researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations. The planned Emerald evaluation described in this editorial provides a potential model for capacity-building evaluation across key stakeholder groups, and promises to extend understanding of useful indicators of success.

Acknowledgements

The partner organisations involved in the Emerald programme are Addis Ababa University (AAU), Ethiopia; Butabika National Mental Hospital (BNH), Uganda; ARTTIC, Germany; HealthNet TPO, Netherlands; King's College London (KCL), United Kingdom (UK); Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI), India; Transcultural Psychosocial Organization Nepal (TPO Nepal), Nepal; Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain; University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa; University of Ibadan (UI), Nigeria; University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), South Africa; and World Health Organization (WHO), Switzerland. The Emerald programme is led by Prof Graham Thornicroft at KCL. The project coordination group consists of Prof Atalay Alem (AAU), Prof José Luis Ayuso-Mateos (UAM), Dr Dan Chisholm (WHO), Dr Stefanie Fülöp (ARTTIC), Prof Oye Gureje (UI), Dr Charlotte Hanlon (AAU), Dr Mark Jordans (HealthNet TPO; TPO Nepal; KCL), Dr Fred Kigozi (BNH), Prof Crick Lund (UCT), Prof Inge Petersen (UKZN), Dr Rahul Shidhaye (PHFI), and Prof Graham Thornicroft (KCL). Parts of the programme are also coordinated by Ms Shalini Ahuja (PHFI), Dr Jibril Omuya Abdulmalik (UI), Ms Kelly Davies (KCL), Ms Sumaiyah Docrat (UCT), Dr Catherine Egbe (UKZN), Dr Sara Evans-Lacko (KCL), Dr Margaret Heslin (KCL), Dr Dorothy Kizza (BNH), Ms Lola Kola (UI), Dr Heidi Lempp (KCL), Dr Pilar López (UAM), Ms Debra Marais (UKZN), Ms Blanca Mellor (UAM), Mr Durgadas Menon (PHFI), Dr James Mugisha (BNH), Ms Sharmishtha Nanda (PHFI), Dr Anita Patel (KCL), Ms Shoba Raja (BasicNeeds, India; KCL), Dr Maya Semrau (KCL), Mr Joshua Ssebunya (BNH), Mr Yomi Taiwo (UI), and Mr Nawaraj Upadhaya (TPO Nepal). The Emerald programme's scientific advisory board includes A/Prof Susan Cleary (UCT), Dr Derege Kebede (WHO, Regional Office for Africa), Prof Harry Minas (University of Melbourne, Australia), Mr Patrick Onyango (TPO Uganda), Prof Jose Luis Salvador Carulla (University of Sydney, Australia), and Dr R Thara (Schizophrenia Research Foundation (SCARF), India). The following individuals are members of the Emerald consortium: Dr Kazeem Adebayo (UI), Ms Jennifer Agha (KCL), Ms Ainali Aikaterini (WHO), Dr Gunilla Backman (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; KCL), Mr Piet Barnard (UCT), Dr Harriet Birabwa (BNH), Ms Erica Breuer (UCT), Mr Shveta Budhraja (PHFI), Amit Chaturvedi (PHFI), Mr Daniel Chekol (AAU), Mr Naadir Daniels (UCT), Mr Bishwa Dunghana (TPO Nepal), Ms Gillian Hanslo (UCT), Ms Edith Kasinga (UCT), Ms Tasneem Kathree (UKZN), Mr Suraj Koirala (TPO Nepal), Prof Ivan Komproe (HealthNet TPO), Dr Mirja Koschorke (KCL), Mr Domenico Lalli (European Commission), Mr Nagendra Luitel (TPO Nepal), Dr David McDaid (KCL), Ms Immaculate Nantongo (BNH), Dr Sheila Ndyanabangi (BNH), Dr Bibilola Oladeji (UI), Prof Vikram Patel (KCL), Ms Louise Pratt (KCL), Prof Martin Prince (KCL), Ms M Miret (UAM), Ms Warda Sablay (UCT), Mr Bunmi Salako (UI), Dr Tatiana Taylor Salisbury (KCL), Dr Shekhar Saxena (WHO), Ms One Selohilwe (UKZN), Dr Ursula Stangel (GABO:mi), Prof Mark Tomlinson (UCT), Dr Abebaw Fekadu (AAU), and Ms Elaine Webb (KCL).

Financial support

The research leading to these results is funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under grant agreement no 305968. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Statement of interest

G.T. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King's College London NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. G.T. acknowledges financial support from the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit awarded to South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London and King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. G.T. is supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) Emerald project. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

References

Abayneh, S, Lempp, H, Alem, A, Alemayehu, D, Esehtu, T, Lund, C, Semrau, M, Thornicroft, G, Hanlon, C (2017). Service user involvement in mental health system strengthening in a rural African setting: qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry 17, 187. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1352-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amuyunzu-Nyamongo, M, Owuor, JO, Blanchard, C (2013). The consortium for NCD prevention and control in Sub-Saharan Africa (CNCD-Africa): from concept to practice. Global Health Promotion 20, 97103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Silva, MJ, Breuer, E, Lee, L, Asher, L, Chowdhary, N, Lund, C, Patel, V (2014). Theory of change: a theory-driven approach to enhance the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions. Trials 15, 267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fekadu, A, Hanlon, C, Medhin, G, Alem, A, Selamu, M, Giorgis, T, Shibre, T, Teferra, S, Tegegn, T, Breuer, E, Patel, V, Tomlinson, M, Thornicroft, G, Prince, M, Lund, C (2016). Development of a scalable mental healthcare plan for a rural district in Ethiopia. British Journal of Psychiatry Supplement 208(s56), s4s12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gurung, D, Upadhyaya, N, Magar, J, Giri, NP, Hanlon, C, Jordans, MJD (2017). Service user and care giver involvement in mental health system strengthening in Nepal: a qualitative study on barriers and facilitating factors. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 11, 30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hann, K, Pearson, H, Campbell, D, Sesay, D, Eaton, J (2015). Factors for success in mental health advocacy. Global Health Action 8, 28791. doi: 10.3402/gha.v8.28791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keynejad, R, Semrau, M, Toynbee, M, Evans-Lacko, S, Lund, C, Gureje, O, Ndyanabangi, S, Courtin, E, Abdulmalik, JO, Alem, A, Fekadu, A, Thornicroft, G, Hanlon, C (2016). Building the capacity of policy-makers and planners to strengthen mental health systems in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 16, 601.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohrt, BA, Upadhaya, N, Luitel, NP, Maharjan, SM, Kaiser, BN, MacFarlane, EK, Khan, N (2014). Authorship in global mental health research: recommendations for collaborative approaches to writing and publishing. Annals of Global Health 80, 134142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBain, R, Norton, D, Morris, J, Yasami, M, Betancourt, T (2012). The role of health systems factors in facilitating access to psychotropic medicines: a cross-sectional analysis of the WHO-AIMS in 63 low- and middle-income countries. PLoS Medicine 9, e1001166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, LC, Magidson, JF, Hock, RS, Joska, JA, Fekadu, A, Hanlon, C, Galler, JR, Safren, SA, Borba, CPC, Fricchione, GL, Henderson, DC (2016). Proposed training areas for global mental health researchers. Academic Psychiatry 40, 679685. doi: 10.1007/s40596-016-0518-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patton, MQ (1997). Utilisation-Focussed Evaluation. Sage: London.Google ScholarPubMed
Petersen, I, Marais, D, Abdulmalik, J, Ahuja, S, Alem, A, Chisholm, D, Egbe, C, Gureje, O, Hanlon, C, Lund, C, Shidhaye, R, Jordans, M, Kigozi, F, Mugisha, J, Upadhaya, N, Thornicroft, G (2017). Strengthening mental health system governance in six low- and middle-income countries in Africa and South Asia: challenges, needs and potential strategies. Health Policy and Planning 32, 699709. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czx014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, D (2014). Patient and public involvement in health research: ethical imperative and/or radical challenge? Journal of Health Psychology 19, 149158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samudre, S, Shidhaye, R, Ahuja, S, Nanda, S, Khan, A, Evans-Lacko, S, Hanlon, C (2016). Service user involvement for mental health system strengthening in India: a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry 16, 269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semrau, M, Evans-Lacko, S, Alem, A, Ayuso-Mateos, JL, Chisholm, D, Gureje, O, Hanlon, C, Jordans, M, Kigozi, F, Lempp, H, Lund, L, Petersen, I, Shidhaye, R, Thornicroft, G (2015). Strengthening mental health systems in low and middle-income countries: the Emerald programme. BMC Medicine 13, 79. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0309-4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semrau, M, Lempp, H, Keynejad, R, Evans-Lacko, S, Mugisha, J, Raja, S, Lamichhane, J, Alem, A, Thornicroft, G, Hanlon, C (2016). Service user and caregiver involvement in mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 16, 79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semrau, M, Alem, A, Abdulmalik, J, Docrat, S, Evans-Lacko, S, Gureje, O, Kigozi, F, Lempp, H, Lund, C, Petersen, I, Shidhaye, R, Thornicroft, G, Hanlon, C (2017). Developing capacity-building activities for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners, and researcher. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. doi: 10.1017/S2045796017000452.Google Scholar
Stuart, H, Arboleda-Florez, J (2001). Community attitudes toward people with schizophrenia. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 46, 245252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
TDR/World Health Organization (2011). Planning, monitoring and evaluation. Framework for capacity strengthening in mental health research. In ESSENCE Good Practice Document Series (ed. WHO), pp. 510. TDR/World Health Organization: Geneva.Google Scholar
TDR/World Health Organization (2016). Planning, monitoring and evaluation. Framework for research capacity strengthening. Revision 2016. In ESSENCE Good Practice Document Series (ed. WHO), pp. 816. TDR/World Health Organization: Geneva.Google Scholar
Thornicroft, G, Tansella, M (2005). Growing recognition of the importance of service user involvement in mental health service planning and evaluation. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 14, 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornicroft, G, Cooper, S, Van Bortel, T, Kakuma, R, Lund, C (2012). Capacity building in global mental health research. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 20, 1324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Ginneken, N, Tharyan, P, Lewin, S, Rao, GN, Meera, SM, Pian, J, Chandrashekar, S, Patel, V (2013). Non-specialist health worker interventions for the care of mental, neurological and substance-abuse disorders in low and middle-income countries (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 11, Art. No.: CD009149. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009149.pub2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization (2016 a). Framework on integrated, people-centred health services. In Sixty Ninth World Health Assembly (ed. World Health Organisation), pp. 1012. WHO: Geneva. Retrieved 22nd July 2017 from http://www.who.int/servicedeliverysafety/areas/people-centred-care/framework/en/.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2016 b). mhGAP Intervention guide for Mental, Neurological and Substance use Disorders in Non-specialized Health Settings: Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP). Version 2.0 WHO: Geneva.Google Scholar
Zachariah, R, Reid, T, Van den Bergh, R, Dahmane, A, Kosgei, RJ, Hinderaker, SG, Tayler-Smith, K, Manzi, M, Kizito, W, Khogali, M, Kumar, AMV, Baruani, B, Bishinga, A, Kilale, AM, Nqobili, M, Patten, G, Sobry, A, Cheti, E, Nakanwagi, A, Enarson, DA, Edginton, ME, Upshur, R, Harries, AD (2013). Applying the ICMJE authorship criteria to operational research in low-income countries: the need to engage programme managers and policy makers. Tropical Medicine and International Health 18, 10251028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. The Emerald programme capacity-building interventions

Figure 1

Table 2. Emerald cross-country indicators for capacity-building of mental health service users and caregivers

Figure 2

Table 3. Service user involvement in Ethiopia: participatory research for mental health systems strengthening

You have Access
24
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *