4.3 Review

WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) Intervention Guide: a systematic review of evidence from low and middleincome countries

Journal

EVIDENCE-BASED MENTAL HEALTH
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 29-33

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/eb-2017-102750

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit
  2. European Union Seventh Framework Programme Emerald project
  3. National Institute for Health Research [ACF-2014-17-007] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Question Despite mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders being highly prevalent, there is a worldwide gap between service need and provision. WHO launched its Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) in 2008, and the Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG) in 2010. mhGAP-IG provides evidence-based guidance and tools for assessment and integrated management of priority MNS disorders in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), using clinical decision-making protocols. It targets a non-specialised primary healthcare audience, but has also been used by ministries, non-governmental organisations and academics, for mental health service scale-up in 90 countries. This review aimed to identify evidence to date for mhGAP-IG implementation in LMICs. Study selection and analysis We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, SciELO/Web of Science, Cochrane, Pubmed databases and Google Scholar for studies reporting evidence, experience or evaluation of mhGAP-IG in LMICs, in any language. Data were extracted from included papers, but heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Findings We conducted a systematic review of evidence to date, of mhGAP-IG implementation and evaluation in LMICs. Thirty-three included studies reported 15 training courses, 9 clinical implementations, 3 country contextualisations, 3 economic models, 2 uses as control interventions and 1 use to develop a rating scale. Our review identified the importance of detailed reports of contextual challenges in the field, alongside detailed protocols, qualitative studies and randomised controlled trials. Conclusions The mhGAP-IG literature is substantial, relative to other published evaluations of clinical practice guidelines: an important contribution to a neglected field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available