Explore the vast range of titles available.

The co-occurrence of health burdens in transitioning populations, particularly in specific socioeconomic and cultural contexts, calls for conceptual frameworks to improve understanding of risk factors, so as to better design and implement prevention and intervention programmes to address comorbidities. The concept of a syndemic, developed by medical anthropologists, provides such a framework for preventing and treating comorbidities. The term syndemic refers to synergistic health problems that affect the health of a population within the context of persistent social and economic inequalities. Until now, syndemic theory has been applied to comorbid health problems in poor immigrant communities in high-income countries with limited translation, and in low-income or middle-income countries. In this Series paper, we examine the application of syndemic theory to comorbidities and multimorbidities in low-income and middle-income countries. We employ diabetes as an exemplar and discuss its comorbidity with HIV in Kenya, tuberculosis in India, and depression in South Africa. Using a model of syndemics that addresses transactional pathophysiology, socioeconomic conditions, health system structures, and cultural context, we illustrate the different syndemics across these countries and the potential benefit of syndemic care to patients. We conclude with recommendations for research and systems of care to address syndemics in low-income and middle-income country settings.

There is limited research on the gap between the burden of mental disorders and treatment use in low- and middle-income countries. The aim of this study was to assess the treatment gap among adults with depressive disorder (DD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) and to examine possible barriers to initiation and continuation of mental health treatment in Nepal. A three-stage sampling technique was used in the study to select 1,983 adults from 10 Village Development Committees (VDCs) of Chitwan district. Presence of DD and AUD were identified with validated versions of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT). Barriers to care were assessed with the Barriers to Access to Care Evaluation (BACE). In this sample, 11.2% (N = 228) and 5.0% (N = 96) screened positive for DD and AUD respectively. Among those scoring above clinical cut-off thresholds, few had received treatment from any providers; 8.1% for DD and 5.1% for AUD in the past 12 months, and only 1.8% (DD) and 1.3% (AUD) sought treatment from primary health care facilities. The major reported barriers to treatment were lacking financial means to afford care, fear of being perceived as \"weak\" for having mental health problems, fear of being perceived as \"crazy\" and being too unwell to ask for help. Barriers to care did not differ based on demographic characteristics such as age, sex, marital status, education, or caste/ethnicity. With more than 90% of the respondents with DD or AUD not participating in treatment, it is crucial to identify avenues to promote help seeking and uptake of treatment. Given that demographic characteristics did not influence barriers to care, it may be possible to pursue general population-wide approaches to promoting service use.

Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) is a multidisciplinary team approach to providing care for young and emerging adults having their first episode of psychosis. CSC programs have expanded rapidly throughout the United States going from 12 programs in 2008 to over 160 programs a decade later. The purpose of this historical review is to document the process and conditions that led to the accelerated dissemination of these programs across the country. CSC models began in the US in the early 2000s, but nationwide expansion followed the 2008 Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode trial. As programs have grown, debates have risen about fidelity to CSC models. The challenges facing CSC programs today include lack of evidence on what are the core components of CSC and how fidelity monitoring relates to positive client outcomes.

[...]depression is a heterogeneous entity experienced with various combinations of signs and symptoms, severity levels, and longitudinal trajectories. [...]core features of the condition have been described over thousands of years, long before the advent of contemporary classifications, and in diverse communities and cultures. More efficient prevention of depression is likely to have powerful impacts on the Sustainable Development Goals for a country and the health of individuals and families. 5 The experiences of depression and recovery are unique for each individual Depression is the result of a set of factors, typically the interaction of proximal adversities with genetic, social, environmental, and developmental risk and resilience factors. Empowering individuals, families, and communities to work with professionals who can learn from their experiences and help demand the implementation of known preventive and therapeutic strategies and to hold health-care systems and decision makers accountable is vital. 7 A formulation is needed to personalise care Detection and diagnosis of depression on the basis of symptoms, function, and duration should be accompanied by a clinical review or formulation for each person, which takes into account individual values and preferences, life stories, and circumstances.

There are gaps in our understanding of how non-specialists, such as lay health workers, can achieve core competencies to deliver psychosocial interventions in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a 12-month mixed-methods study alongside the Rehabilitation Intervention for people with Schizophrenia in Ethiopia (RISE) pilot study. We rated a total of 30 role-plays and 55 clinical encounters of ten community-based rehabilitation (CBR) lay workers using an Ethiopian adaptation of the ENhancing Assessment of Common Therapeutic factors (ENACT) structured observational rating scale. To explore factors influencing competence, six focus group discussions and four in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 CBR workers and two supervisors at three time-points. We conducted a thematic analysis and triangulated the qualitative and quantitative data. There were improvements in CBR worker competence throughout the training and 12-month pilot study. Therapeutic alliance competencies (e.g., empathy) saw the earliest improvements. Competencies in personal factors (e.g., substance use) and external factors (e.g., assessing social networks) were initially rated lower, but scores improved during the pilot. Problem-solving and giving advice competencies saw the least improvements overall. Multimodal training, including role-plays, field work and group discussions, contributed to early development of competence. Initial stigma towards CBR participants was reduced through contact. Over time CBR workers occupied dual roles of expert and close friend for the people with schizophrenia in the programme. Competence was sustained through peer supervision, which also supported wellbeing. More intensive specialist supervision was needed. It is possible to equip lay health workers with the core competencies to deliver a psychosocial intervention for people with schizophrenia in a low-income setting. A prolonged period of work experience is needed to develop advanced skills such as problem-solving. A structured intervention with clear protocols, combined with peer supervision to support wellbeing, is recommended for good quality intervention delivery. Repeated ENACT assessments can feasibly and successfully be used to identify areas needing improvement and to guide on-going training and supervision.

The theory of syndemics has received increasing attention in clinical medicine since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, due to the synergistic interactions of the disease with pre-existing political, structural, social and health conditions. In simple terms, syndemics are synergistically interacting epidemics that occur in a particular context with shared drivers. When policymakers ask why some communities have higher death rates from COVID-19 compared with other communities, those working from a syndemics framework argue that multiple factors synergistically work in tandem, and populations with the highest morbidity and mortality experience the greatest impact of these interactions. In this Perspective, we use specific case examples to illustrate these concepts. We discuss the emergence of syndemics, how epidemics interact, and what scientists, clinicians and policymakers can do with this information. This Perspective delivers an introduction to syndemic thinking, and provides insights into how epidemics interact and what scientists, clinicians and policymakers can do with this information.

In low-income countries, care for people with mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders is largely absent, especially in rural settings. To increase treatment coverage, integration of mental health services into community and primary healthcare settings is recommended. While this strategy is being rolled out globally, rigorous evaluation of outcomes at each stage of the service delivery pathway from detection to treatment initiation to individual outcomes of care has been missing. A combination of methods were employed to evaluate the impact of a district mental healthcare plan for depression, psychosis, alcohol use disorder (AUD), and epilepsy as part of the Programme for Improving Mental Health Care (PRIME) in Chitwan District, Nepal. We evaluated 4 components of the service delivery pathway: (1) contact coverage of primary care mental health services, evaluated through a community study (N = 3,482 combined for all waves of community surveys) and through service utilisation data (N = 727); (2) detection of mental illness among participants presenting in primary care facilities, evaluated through a facility study (N = 3,627 combined for all waves of facility surveys); (3) initiation of minimally adequate treatment after diagnosis, evaluated through the same facility study; and (4) treatment outcomes of patients receiving primary-care-based mental health services, evaluated through cohort studies (total N = 449 depression, N = 137; AUD, N = 175; psychosis, N = 95; epilepsy, N = 42). The lack of structured diagnostic assessments (instead of screening tools), the relatively small sample size for some study components, and the uncontrolled nature of the study are among the limitations to be noted. All data collection took place between 15 January 2013 and 15 February 2017. Contact coverage increased 7.5% for AUD (from 0% at baseline), 12.2% for depression (from 0%), 11.7% for epilepsy (from 1.3%), and 50.2% for psychosis (from 3.2%) when using service utilisation data over 12 months; community survey results did not reveal significant changes over time. Health worker detection of depression increased by 15.7% (from 8.9% to 24.6%) 6 months after training, and 10.3% (from 8.9% to 19.2%) 24 months after training; for AUD the increase was 58.9% (from 1.1% to 60.0%) and 11.0% (from 1.1% to 12.1%) for 6 months and 24 months, respectively. Provision of minimally adequate treatment subsequent to diagnosis for depression was 93.9% at 6 months and 66.7% at 24 months; for AUD these values were 95.1% and 75.0%, respectively. Changes in treatment outcomes demonstrated small to moderate effect sizes (9.7-point reduction [d = 0.34] in AUD symptoms, 6.4-point reduction [d = 0.43] in psychosis symptoms, 7.2-point reduction [d = 0.58] in depression symptoms) at 12 months post-treatment. These combined results make a promising case for the feasibility and impact of community- and primary-care-based services delivered through an integrated district mental healthcare plan in reducing the treatment gap and increasing effective coverage for MNS disorders. While the integrated mental healthcare approach does lead to apparent benefits in most of the outcome metrics, there are still significant areas that require further attention (e.g., no change in community-level contact coverage, attrition in AUD detection rates over time, and relatively low detection rates for depression).

There is a worldwide dearth in literature on the nature, causes, and consequences of structural stigma in mental healthcare. This study aimed to address this gap by exploring key components for measuring structural stigma in healthcare system settings. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of 3 rounds with global experts (stigma researchers, persons with lived experiences of mental health conditions (PWLEs), and policymakers). In the first round, indicators identified through a literature review (n = 39 studies) were appraised through expert consultation workshops with 22 panellists, including 54.5% women, 41% PWLEs, and 68.2% from low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Round 2 (n = 53 panellists; 51% women, 8.3% PWLEs, and 56.6% from LMICs) involved ranking indicators through an online survey, and Round 3 (n = 58 panellists; 46% women, 21.7% PWLEs, and 60.4% from LMICs) involved re-ranking the results from Round 2. Smith's salience index was calculated to measure consensus and Kendall's coefficient of concordance to determine the degree of agreement. Narrative opinions and feedback from panellists during all three Delphi rounds were also sought. A list of indicators within five core measurement domains was identified in Round 1. Round 2 results were heterogeneous as indicated by the low to moderate salience of most indicators. Round 3 resulted in 4-5 indicators in each domain, that were ranked as highly salient by the expert panellists. Experts also provided narrative feedback on the definition of structural stigma, barriers to its measurement, domain-specific comments, and indicators-specific comments. The framework aids in defining mental health-related structural stigma in healthcare and framing it in terms of inequities within healthcare system structures. These structures result in negative experiences of PWLEs and limit their access to quality healthcare. This conceptualization, informed by PWLE and stakeholders in LMICs, makes it easier to measure structural stigma and monitor changes in diverse healthcare settings around the world.

Stigma among healthcare providers is a barrier to the effective delivery of mental health services in primary care. Few studies have been conducted in primary care settings comparing the attitudes of healthcare providers and experiences of people with mental illness who are service users in those facilities. Such research is necessary across diverse global settings to characterize stigma and inform effective stigma reduction. Qualitative research was conducted on mental illness stigma in primary care settings in one low-income country (Nepal), two lower-middle income countries (India, Tunisia), one upper-middle-income country (Lebanon), and three high-income countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy). Qualitative interviews were conducted with 248 participants: 64 primary care providers, 11 primary care facility managers, 111 people with mental illness, and 60 family members of people with mental illness. Data were analyzed using framework analysis. Primary care providers endorsed some willingness to help persons with mental illness but reported not having appropriate training and supervision to deliver mental healthcare. They expressed that people with mental illness are aggressive and unpredictable. Some reported that mental illness is incurable, and mental healthcare is burdensome and leads to burnout. They preferred mental healthcare to be delivered by specialists. Service users did not report high levels of discrimination from primary care providers; however, they had limited expectations of support from primary care providers. Service users reported internalized stigma and discrimination from family and community members. Providers and service users reported unreliable psychiatric medication supply and lack of facilities for confidential consultations. Limitations of the study include conducting qualitative interviews in clinical settings and reliance on clinician-researchers in some sites to conduct interviews, which potentially biases respondents to present attitudes and experiences about primary care services in a positive manner. Primary care providers' willingness to interact with people with mental illness and receive more training presents an opportunity to address stigmatizing beliefs and stereotypes. This study also raises important methodological questions about the most appropriate strategies to accurately understand attitudes and experiences of people with mental illness. Recommendations are provided for future qualitative research about stigma, such as qualitative interviewing by non-clinical personnel, involving non-clinical staff for recruitment of participants, conducting interviews in non-clinical settings, and partnering with people with mental illness to facilitate qualitative data collection and analysis.