4.6 Article

The Healthy Activity Program lay counsellor delivered treatment for severe depression in India: systematic development and randomised evaluation

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 208, 期 4, 页码 381-+

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.161075

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [091834/Z/10/Z]
  2. Wellcome Trust [091834/Z/10/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  3. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0611-10210] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Reducing the global treatment gap for mental disorders requires treatments that are economical, effective and culturally appropriate. Aims To describe a systematic approach to the development of a brief psychological treatment for patients with severe depression delivered by lay counsellors in primary healthcare. Method The treatment was developed in three stages using a variety of methods: (a) identifying potential strategies; (b) developing a theoretical framework; and (c) evaluating the acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of the psychological treatment. Results The Healthy Activity Program (HAP) is delivered over 6-8 sessions and consists of behavioral activation as the core psychological framework with added emphasis on strategies such as problem-solving and activation of social networks. Key elements to improve acceptability and feasibility are also included. In an intention-to-treat analysis of a pilot randomised controlled trial (55 participants), the prevalence of depression (Beck Depression Inventory II 519) after 2 months was lower in the HAP than the control arm (adjusted risk ratio = 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.94, P = 0.01). Conclusions Our systematic approach to the development of psychological treatments could be extended to other mental disorders. HAP is an acceptable and effective brief psychological treatment for severe depression delivered by lay counsellors in primary care. Declaration of interest None. Copyright and usage (C) The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据