M N Khan1, S U Hamdani2, A Chiumento3, K Dawson4, R A Bryant4, M Sijbrandij5, H Nazir2, P Akhtar2, A Masood2, D Wang6, E Wang7, I Uddin8, M van Ommeren9, A Rahman2. 1. Khyber Medical University,Institute of Public Health & Social Sciences (IPH&SS),10-B,Near ICMS,Phase V,Hayatabad,Peshawar,Pakistan. 2. Human Development Research Foundation,Islamabad,Pakistan. 3. University of Liverpool,Liverpool,UK. 4. University of New South Wales,Sydney,Australia. 5. VU University Amsterdam,Amsterdam,The Netherlands. 6. Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine,Liverpool,UK. 7. Queen Mary University of London,UK. 8. Bacha Khan Medical College,Mardan,Pakistan. 9. Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse,World Health Organisation,Geneva,Switzerland.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this feasibility trial was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the locally adapted Group Problem Management Plus (PM+) intervention for women in the conflict affected settings in Swat, Pakistan. METHODS: This mixed-methods study incorporated a quantitative component consisting of a two arm cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial, and qualitative evaluation of the acceptability of the Group PM+ to a range of stakeholder groups. For the quantitative component, on average from each of the 20 Lady Health Workers (LHWs) catchment area (20 clusters), six women were screened and recruited for the trial with score of >2 on the General Health Questionnaire and score of >16 on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule. These LHW clusters were randomised on a 1 : 1 allocation ratio using a computer-based software through a simple randomisation method to the Group PM+ intervention or Enhanced Usual Care. The Group PM+ intervention consisted of five weekly sessions of 2 h duration delivered by local non-specialist females under supervision. The primary outcome was individual psychological distress, measured by levels of anxiety and depression on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 7th week after baseline. Secondary outcomes include symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), general psychological profile, levels of functioning and generalised psychological distress. Intervention acceptability was explored through in-depth interviews. RESULTS: The results show that lay-helpers with no prior mental health experience can be trained to achieve the desired competency to successfully deliver the intervention in community settings under supervision. There was a good intervention uptake, with Group PM+ considered useful by participants, their families and lay-helpers. The outcome evaluation, which was not based on a large enough study to identify statistically significant results, indicated statistically significant improvements in depression, anxiety, general psychological profile and functioning. The PTSD symptoms and depressive disorder scores showed a trend in favour of the intervention. CONCLUSION: This trial showed robust acceptance in the local settings with delivery by non-specialists under supervision by local trained females. The trial paves the way for further adaptation and exploration of the outcomes through larger-scale implementation and definitive randomised controlled trials in the local settings.
AIMS: The aim of this feasibility trial was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the locally adapted Group Problem Management Plus (PM+) intervention for women in the conflict affected settings in Swat, Pakistan. METHODS: This mixed-methods study incorporated a quantitative component consisting of a two arm cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial, and qualitative evaluation of the acceptability of the Group PM+ to a range of stakeholder groups. For the quantitative component, on average from each of the 20 Lady Health Workers (LHWs) catchment area (20 clusters), six women were screened and recruited for the trial with score of >2 on the General Health Questionnaire and score of >16 on the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule. These LHW clusters were randomised on a 1 : 1 allocation ratio using a computer-based software through a simple randomisation method to the Group PM+ intervention or Enhanced Usual Care. The Group PM+ intervention consisted of five weekly sessions of 2 h duration delivered by local non-specialist females under supervision. The primary outcome was individual psychological distress, measured by levels of anxiety and depression on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 7th week after baseline. Secondary outcomes include symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), general psychological profile, levels of functioning and generalised psychological distress. Intervention acceptability was explored through in-depth interviews. RESULTS: The results show that lay-helpers with no prior mental health experience can be trained to achieve the desired competency to successfully deliver the intervention in community settings under supervision. There was a good intervention uptake, with Group PM+ considered useful by participants, their families and lay-helpers. The outcome evaluation, which was not based on a large enough study to identify statistically significant results, indicated statistically significant improvements in depression, anxiety, general psychological profile and functioning. The PTSD symptoms and depressive disorder scores showed a trend in favour of the intervention. CONCLUSION: This trial showed robust acceptance in the local settings with delivery by non-specialists under supervision by local trained females. The trial paves the way for further adaptation and exploration of the outcomes through larger-scale implementation and definitive randomised controlled trials in the local settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Depression; group therapy; other psychosocial techniques/treatments; randomised controlled trials; women
Authors: Christina George; Libu Gnanaseelan Kanakamma; Jacob John; Ginesh Sunny; Alex Cohen; Mary J De Silva Journal: Asia Pac Psychiatry Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.538
Authors: Ritsuko Kakuma; Harry Minas; Nadja van Ginneken; Mario R Dal Poz; Keshav Desiraju; Jodi E Morris; Shekhar Saxena; Richard M Scheffler Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-10-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gavin Andrews; Alice Kemp; Matthew Sunderland; Michael Von Korff; Tevik Bedirhan Ustun Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mary Ellsberg; Henrica A F M Jansen; Lori Heise; Charlotte H Watts; Claudia Garcia-Moreno Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-04-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peter Ventevogel; Mark van Ommeren; Marian Schilperoord; Shekhar Saxena Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Caroline Zubieta; Alex Lichtl; Karen Trautman; Stefka Mentor; Diana Cagliero; Augustina Mensa-Kwao; Olivia Paige; Schatzi McCarthy; David K Walmer; Bonnie N Kaiser Journal: Cult Med Psychiatry Date: 2020-03
Authors: M N Khan; S U Hamdani; A Chiumento; K Dawson; R A Bryant; M Sijbrandij; H Nazir; P Akhtar; A Masood; D Wang; E Wang; I Uddin; M van Ommeren; A Rahman Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Manaswi Sangraula; Edith Van't Hof; Nagendra P Luitel; Elizabeth L Turner; Kedar Marahatta; Jolene H Nakao; Mark van Ommeren; Mark J D Jordans; Brandon A Kohrt Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2018-07-18