| Literature DB >> 32028910 |
Kaustubh Joag1, Laura Shields-Zeeman2, Nandita Kapadia-Kundu3, Rama Kawade4, Madhumitha Balaji4,5, Soumitra Pathare4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many community-based intervention models for mental health and wellbeing have undergone robust experimental evaluation; however, there are limited accounts of the implementation of these evidence-based interventions in practice. Atmiyata piloted the implementation of a community-led intervention to identify and understand the challenges of delivering such an intervention. The goal of the pilot evaluation is to identify factors important for larger-scale implementation across an entire district in India. This paper presents the results of a feasibility and acceptability study of the Atmiyata intervention piloted in Nashik district, Maharashtra, India between 2013 and 2015.Entities:
Keywords: Common mental disorders; Community mental health; Community-based intervention; Distress; Low and middle-income countries
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32028910 PMCID: PMC7006077 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-020-2466-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Socio-demographic characteristics of the population study participants at baseline from intervention and control group
| Characteristics | Intervention | Control ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 49.9 | 49.2 | 0.583ns |
| Male | 50.1 | 50.8 | ||
| Age (years) | 18–29 | 45.7 | 52.7 | 0.108ns |
| 30–39 | 31.0 | 29.6 | ||
| 40+ | 23.2 | 17.6 | ||
| Education | No school | 26.7 | 39.0 | 0.000a |
| Up to 4 years of schooling | 13.1 | 14.9 | ||
| 5–10 years of schooling | 35.3 | 34.2 | ||
| 11+ years of schooling | 24.8 | 11.9 | ||
| Occupation | Farmer | 72.1 | 79.3 | 0.201ns |
| Labourer & worker | 23.0 | 15.9 | ||
| Not working | 4.8 | 4.7 | ||
| Family type | Joint | 82.6 | 79.9 | 0.279ns |
| Nuclear | 17.3 | 20.1 | ||
| Number of members in family | 1–4 | 26.5 | 19.6 | 0.088ns |
| 5–7 | 48.7 | 54.7 | ||
| 8+ | 24.7 | 25.6 | ||
| Type of house | Kutcha | 24.2 | 24.5 | 0.534ns |
| Kutcha-Pucca | 71.5 | 69.6 | ||
| Pucca | 4.2 | 5.9 | ||
| Place of defecation | Toilet | 27.4 | 28.3 | 0.439ns |
| Open defecation | 72.6 | 71.7 | ||
Values are percent of the participants
Test of proportion i.e. Chi-square test was used to test the difference in proportion across the intervention and control group
ns Statistically non-significant difference in proportions (p > 0.05)
aStatistically significant difference in proportions (p < 0.05)
GHQ 12 scores for persons with distress (n = 215) at baseline and 3 Month follow-up
| GHQ12 Scores of persons with distress identified by Champions | May–June 2015 | 3 month | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |
| Non-Case (0–3) | 13 | 6.0 | 85 | 39.5 |
| Sub Threshold case (4–5) | 63 | 29.3 | 52 | 24.2 |
| Case (6+) | 139 | 64.7 | 78 | 36.3 |
| Total | 215 | 100 | 215 | 100 |
The McNemar-Bowker test determined the significant difference in the proportion of cases before counselling and at follow-up (p < 0.001)
Overview of Atmiyata Champions, Mitras and service utilisation rates
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Number of Champions selected and trained | |
| Total | 65 |
| Male | 37 (57%) |
| Female | 28 (43%) |
| Retention rate of Champions until the end of implementation | |
| Total | 59 (91%) |
| Male | 33 (56%) |
| Female | 26 (44%) |
| Number of | 264 |
| Retention rate of | 264 |
| Identification and service utilisation | |
| Number of people with common mental health problems detected | 1150 (8.2% of population) |
| Number of people with common mental disorders referred to primary and secondary health services | 77 |
| Number of people with severe mental health problems detected | 181 (1.3% of population) |
| Number of referrals of severe mental health problems to specialized care | 181 (1.3% of population) |
| Number of people who used referrals | 92 went to public health facilities (51% of those referred) 28 chose to go to private providers (15.5% of those referred) |
| Number of people with severe mental health problems (in public health facilities) that continued treatment after referral | 58/92 (63% of those who went to public facilities) |
| Number of families assisted to obtain social benefits like Sanjay Gandhi Niradhar Scheme, Integrated Watershed Management Program, Life Insurance for people with disability, Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Scheme. | 276 (1785 individuals in families12.75% of population) |
| Direct monetary benefits received by | 624 individuals |
| Treatment seeking for persons with CMD- % of respondents seen by Atmiyata Champions at end line population survey | 17.5% |
Population-level impact on reduction in mean GHQ scores in the intervention and control areas
| GHQ12 score | Intervention | Control |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline (Aug-Sept 2014) | 2.68 ± 0.08 | 1.50 ± 0.05 |
| End line (Aug-Sept 2015) | 2.51 ± 0.07 | 2.19 ± 0.06 |
| Change in mean GHQ score from baseline to end line | − 0.16 ± 0.10a | 0.69 ± 0.08b |
| Percent of respondents with decrease in scores | 43.1 | 29.2c |
Values are Mean ± Standard Mean Error
a. Between groups change over baseline was assessed by independent sample t test
The scores were significantly reduced in Intervention group as compared to control (p = 0.046)
b. Change over baseline was significant as assessed by paired t test (p = 0.001)
c. DifferenceinproportionwasstatisticallysignificantasassessedbyChi-squaretest (p = 0.001)
Logistic regression for assessment of impact of intervention on GHQ score
| Independent variable | OR | 95% CI for OR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control area | 1 | ||
| Intervention area | 1.3 | ||
| 1.1–1.6 | 0.023* | ||
| GHQ at base line | 0.5 | 0.4–0.6 | 0.000* |
Dependent variable: Decrease in GHQ score (Yes/No)
Loglikelihood = − 953.26287
PseudoR2 = 0.1715
Fig. 1‘Components responsible for Atmiyata’s success’