Explore the vast range of titles available.

Resources for mental health include policy and infrastructure within countries, mental health services, community resources, human resources, and funding. We discuss here the general availability of these resources, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Government spending on mental health in most of the relevant countries is far lower than is needed, based on the proportionate burden of mental disorders and the availability of cost-effective and affordable interventions. The poorest countries spend the lowest percentages of their overall health budgets on mental health. Most care is now institutionally based, and the transition to community care would require additional funds that have not been made available in most countries. Human resources available for mental health care in most low-income and middle-income countries are very limited, and shortages are likely to persist. Not only are resources for mental health scarce, they are also inequitably distributed—between countries, between regions, and within communities. Populations with high rates of socioeconomic deprivation have the highest need for mental health care, but the lowest access to it. Stigma about mental disorders also constrains use of available resources. People with mental illnesses are also vulnerable to abuse of their human rights. Inefficiencies in the use of available resources for mental health care include allocative and technical inefficiencies in financing mechanisms and interventions, and an overconcentration of resources in large institutions. Scarcity of available resources, inequities in their distribution, and inefficiencies in their use pose the three main obstacles to better mental health, especially in low-income and middle-income countries.

Little is known about how to tailor implementation of mental health services in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to the diverse settings encountered within and between countries. In this paper we compare the baseline context, challenges and opportunities in districts in five LMICs (Ethiopia, India, Nepal, South Africa and Uganda) participating in the PRogramme for Improving Mental health carE (PRIME). The purpose was to inform development and implementation of a comprehensive district plan to integrate mental health into primary care. A situation analysis tool was developed for the study, drawing on existing tools and expert consensus. Cross-sectional information obtained was largely in the public domain in all five districts. The PRIME study districts face substantial contextual and health system challenges many of which are common across sites. Reliable information on existing treatment coverage for mental disorders was unavailable. Particularly in the low-income countries, many health service organisational requirements for mental health care were absent, including specialist mental health professionals to support the service and reliable supplies of medication. Across all sites, community mental health literacy was low and there were no models of multi-sectoral working or collaborations with traditional or religious healers. Nonetheless health system opportunities were apparent. In each district there was potential to apply existing models of care for tuberculosis and HIV or non-communicable disorders, which have established mechanisms for detection of drop-out from care, outreach and adherence support. The extensive networks of community-based health workers and volunteers in most districts provide further opportunities to expand mental health care. The low level of baseline health system preparedness across sites underlines that interventions at the levels of health care organisation, health facility and community will all be essential for sustainable delivery of quality mental health care integrated into primary care.

To carry out an economic evaluation of a task-shifting intervention for the treatment of depressive and anxiety disorders in primary-care settings in Goa, India. Cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses based on generalized linear models were performed within a trial set in 24 public and private primary-care facilities. Subjects were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control arm. Eligible subjects in the intervention arm were given psycho-education, case management, interpersonal psychotherapy and/or antidepressants by lay health workers. Subjects in the control arm were treated by physicians. The use of health-care resources, the disability of each subject and degree of psychiatric morbidity, as measured by the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule, were determined at 2, 6 and 12 months. Complete data, from all three follow-ups, were collected from 1243 (75.4%) and 938 (81.7%) of the subjects enrolled in the study facilities from the public and private sectors, respectively. Within the public facilities, subjects in the intervention arm showed greater improvement in all the health outcomes investigated than those in the control arm. Time costs were also significantly lower in the intervention arm than in the control arm, whereas health system costs in the two arms were similar. Within the private facilities, however, the effectiveness and costs recorded in the two arms were similar. Within public primary-care facilities in Goa, the use of lay health workers in the care of subjects with common mental disorders was not only cost-effective but also cost-saving.

Background Despite consistent recognition of their influence, empirical study of how outer setting factors (e.g., policies, financing, stakeholder relationships) influence public systems’ investment in and adoption of evidence-based treatment (EBT) is limited. This study examined associations among unmodifiable (e.g., demographic, economic, political, structural factors) and modifiable (e.g., allocation of resources, social processes, policies, and regulations) outer setting factors and adoption of behavioral health EBT by US states. Methods Multilevel models examined relationships between state characteristics, an array of funding and policy variables, and state adoption of behavioral health EBTs for adults and children across years 2002–2012, using data from the National Association for State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute and other sources. Results Several unmodifiable state factors, including per capita income, controlling political party, and Medicaid expansion, predicted level of state fiscal investments in EBT. By contrast, modifiable factors, such as interagency collaboration and investment in research centers, were more predictive of state policies supportive of EBT. Interestingly, level of adult EBT adoption was associated with state fiscal supports for EBT, while child EBT adoption was predicted more by supportive policies. State per capita debt and direct state operation of services (versus contracting for services) predicted both child and adult EBT adoption. Conclusions State-level EBT adoption and associated implementation support is associated with an interpretable array of policy, financing, and oversight factors. Such information expands our knowledge base of the role of the outer setting in implementation and may provide insight into how best to focus efforts to promote EBT for behavioral health disorders.

Background Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) is currently implemented in Norwegian mental health services, aiming to ensure comprehensive and rights-based services for persons with severe mental illness and complex needs, but also motivated by assumed cost-effectiveness. We need knowledge about the consequences of this service innovation. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in total and involuntary inpatient mental health treatment and associated changes in costs of inpatient days before and after enrolment into FACT for persons with severe mental illness and complex needs in Norway. Methods In this naturalistic observational cohort study of 397 patients in eight Norwegian FACT teams, we compared total and involuntary admissions, total and involuntary inpatient days, and the costs of total and involuntary inpatient days, for two periods: 24 months before and 24 months after enrolment in FACT. We used paired t-test. Results There was a significant reduction in involuntary admissions, involuntary inpatient days, and total inpatient days after enrolment in FACT. We found a slight but non-significant reduction in total admissions to inpatient mental health treatment. There was a significant reduction in the costs of total inpatient days and involuntary inpatient days. Conclusion Patients in FACT were admitted to inpatient treatment as frequently as before enrolment in FACT, but involuntary admissions were less frequent. Furthermore, the duration of involuntary and total inpatient treatment was reduced, with a corresponding reduction in costs as expected. Results suggest that targeted and well-timed interventions from FACT may reduce the need for prolonged involuntary inpatient treatment, implying reduced disadvantages for the individual and more efficient allocation of health service funding.

Background Community-based rehabilitation (CBR), or community-based inclusive development, is an approach to address the complex health, social and economic needs of people with schizophrenia in low and middle-income countries. Formative work was undertaken previously to design a culturally appropriate CBR intervention for people with schizophrenia in Ethiopia. The current study explored the acceptability and feasibility of CBR in practice, as well as how CBR may improve functioning among people with schizophrenia. Methods This mixed methods pilot study took place in rural Ethiopia between December 2014 and December 2015. Ten people with schizophrenia who were unresponsive to treatment with medication alone, and their caregivers, participated in CBR. CBR was led by lay workers with five weeks training and involved home visits (education, family intervention and support returning to work) and community mobilisation. Theory of change was used to guide the pilot evaluation. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected at baseline, six months and 12 months. Forty in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions were conducted with 31 individuals comprising people with schizophrenia, caregivers, CBR workers, supervisors, health officers and community members. Results The RISE CBR intervention may have a positive impact on functioning through the pathways of enhanced family support, improved access to health care, increased income and improved self-esteem. CBR was acceptable to CBR workers, community leaders and health officers. Some CBR workers found it challenging to accept the choices of people with schizophrenia. These concerns were felt to be resolvable with supplementary training for CBR workers. The intervention was feasible but further evaluation is needed on a larger scale. Conclusion In low and middle-income countries, CBR may be an acceptable and feasible adjuvant approach to facility-based care for people with schizophrenia. However, contextual factors, including poverty and inaccessible anti-psychotic medication, remain substantial challenges. There were indications that CBR can impact on functioning but the RISE trial will determine effectiveness.

BackgroundNew payments from Medicare encourage behavioral health services to be integrated into primary care practice activities.ObjectiveTo evaluate the financial impact for primary care practices of integrating behavioral health services.DesignMicrosimulation model.ParticipantsWe simulated patients and providers at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), non-FQHCs in urban and rural high-poverty areas, and practices outside of high-poverty areas surveyed by the National Association of Community Health Centers, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and National Health Interview Survey.InterventionsA collaborative care model (CoCM), involving telephone-based follow-up from a behaviorist care manager, or a primary care behaviorist model (PCBM), involving an in-clinic behaviorist.Main MeasuresNet revenue change per full-time physician.Key ResultsWhen behavioral health integration services were offered only to Medicare patients, net revenue was higher under CoCM (averaging $25,026 per MD in year 1 and $28,548/year in subsequent years) than PCBM (−$7052 in year 1 and -$3706/year in subsequent years). When behavioral health integration services were offered to all patients and were reimbursed by Medicare and private payers, only practices adopting the CoCM approach consistently gained net revenues. The outcomes of the model were sensitive to rates of patient referral acceptance, presentation, and therapy completion, but the CoCM approach remained consistently financially viable whereas PCBM would not be in the long-run across practice types.ConclusionsNew Medicare payments may offer financial viability for primary care practices to integrate behavioral health services, but this viability depends on the approach toward care integration.

Information about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken. The mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123,683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148,751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50,000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.

The balanced care model proposes that a comprehensive mental health system needs to include both community-and hospital-based care. The model is based on a structured review of scientific evidence, and is also informed by the experience of experts active in mental health system change in many countries worldwide.