Feasibility and acceptability of community-based psychosocial interventions delivered by nonspecialists for perinatal common mental disorders: A systematic review using an implementation science framework.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Global Mental Health Pub Date : 2025-05-26 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/gmh.2025.10010
Prasansa Subba, Pragya Shrestha, Atif Rahman, Nagendra Luitel, Ahmed Waqas, Siham Sikander
{"title":"Feasibility and acceptability of community-based psychosocial interventions delivered by nonspecialists for perinatal common mental disorders: A systematic review using an implementation science framework.","authors":"Prasansa Subba, Pragya Shrestha, Atif Rahman, Nagendra Luitel, Ahmed Waqas, Siham Sikander","doi":"10.1017/gmh.2025.10010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Task sharing is endorsed as one of the strategies to address the treatment gap in common perinatal mental health conditions. There is a well-established body of evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered by nonspecialist health workers (NSHWs); however, there is a dearth of evidence documenting factors determining the feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of integrating and implementing these interventions. This systematic review aims to synthesize the implementation outcomes and implementation process of NSHWs-delivered psychological interventions for the management of perinatal depression and anxiety using Proctor's implementation science framework outlining eight constructs: feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, cost, fidelity, penetration and sustainability. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for studies published in English and between 2000 and 2022 using search terms under five broad categories: (a) \"perinatal\"; (b) \"common mental disorders\"; (c) \"psychological interventions\"; (d) \"nonspecialist\" and (e) \"implementation outcomes.\" Secondary publications were also hand-searched for data extraction. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. Data for included articles were extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. A narrative synthesis of qualitative evidence was conducted. Initial searches identified 885 articles of which full text of 128 articles were screened for eligibility, with 56 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Out of the eight constructs of Proctor's framework, \"feasibility,\" \"acceptability,\" \"appropriateness\" and \"fidelity\" were the most evaluated outcomes. None of the studies reported \"penetration\" and very few reported \"sustainability,\" \"adoption\" or \"cost.\" None of the studies used any implementation science framework for the study evaluation. Despite the well-established evidence on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for perinatal depression and anxiety by NSHWs, these interventions are rarely adopted into the health system. More studies applying systems thinking are needed to explore facilitators, barriers and mechanisms for integrating interventions in the health system. Using implementation science frameworks to design, plan, execute and evaluate psychosocial interventions by NSHWs can address this gap in evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":48579,"journal":{"name":"Global Mental Health","volume":"12 ","pages":"e54"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12186571/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2025.10010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Task sharing is endorsed as one of the strategies to address the treatment gap in common perinatal mental health conditions. There is a well-established body of evidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions delivered by nonspecialist health workers (NSHWs); however, there is a dearth of evidence documenting factors determining the feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of integrating and implementing these interventions. This systematic review aims to synthesize the implementation outcomes and implementation process of NSHWs-delivered psychological interventions for the management of perinatal depression and anxiety using Proctor's implementation science framework outlining eight constructs: feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, cost, fidelity, penetration and sustainability. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for studies published in English and between 2000 and 2022 using search terms under five broad categories: (a) "perinatal"; (b) "common mental disorders"; (c) "psychological interventions"; (d) "nonspecialist" and (e) "implementation outcomes." Secondary publications were also hand-searched for data extraction. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles. Data for included articles were extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. A narrative synthesis of qualitative evidence was conducted. Initial searches identified 885 articles of which full text of 128 articles were screened for eligibility, with 56 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Out of the eight constructs of Proctor's framework, "feasibility," "acceptability," "appropriateness" and "fidelity" were the most evaluated outcomes. None of the studies reported "penetration" and very few reported "sustainability," "adoption" or "cost." None of the studies used any implementation science framework for the study evaluation. Despite the well-established evidence on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for perinatal depression and anxiety by NSHWs, these interventions are rarely adopted into the health system. More studies applying systems thinking are needed to explore facilitators, barriers and mechanisms for integrating interventions in the health system. Using implementation science frameworks to design, plan, execute and evaluate psychosocial interventions by NSHWs can address this gap in evidence.

非专业人员对围产期常见精神障碍实施社区社会心理干预的可行性和可接受性:使用实施科学框架的系统综述
任务分担被认可为解决常见围产期心理健康状况治疗差距的战略之一。关于非专业卫生工作者(NSHWs)提供的心理干预的有效性,已经有了相当完善的证据;然而,缺乏证据证明决定整合和实施这些干预措施的可行性、可接受性和可持续性的因素。本系统综述旨在综合nshws提供的围产期抑郁和焦虑心理干预的实施结果和实施过程,使用Proctor实施科学框架概述了八个结构:可行性、可接受性、适当性、采用、成本、保真度、渗透和可持续性。我们在PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials中检索了2000年至2022年间用英语发表的研究,使用了以下五大类搜索词:(a)“围产期”;(b)“常见精神障碍”;(c)“心理干预”;(d)“非专业人士”及(e)”实现的结果。”还手工检索了二级出版物以提取数据。两位作者独立审查摘要和全文文章。使用标准数据提取表提取纳入文章的数据。对定性证据进行了叙述性综合。初步检索确定了885篇文章,其中128篇文章的全文被筛选为合格,其中56篇研究符合纳入标准。在Proctor框架的八个构念中,“可行性”、“可接受性”、“适当性”和“保真度”是评价最多的结果。没有一项研究报告“渗透”,很少有研究报告“可持续性”、“采用”或“成本”。没有一项研究使用任何实施科学框架进行研究评估。尽管社会心理干预对新生儿围产期抑郁和焦虑的有效性有充分的证据,但这些干预措施很少被卫生系统采用。需要更多应用系统思维的研究来探索将干预措施纳入卫生系统的促进因素、障碍和机制。使用实施科学框架来设计、计划、执行和评估nshw的社会心理干预措施可以解决这一证据缺口。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Mental Health
Global Mental Health PSYCHIATRY-
自引率
5.10%
发文量
58
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: lobal Mental Health (GMH) is an Open Access journal that publishes papers that have a broad application of ‘the global point of view’ of mental health issues. The field of ‘global mental health’ is still emerging, reflecting a movement of advocacy and associated research driven by an agenda to remedy longstanding treatment gaps and disparities in care, access, and capacity. But these efforts and goals are also driving a potential reframing of knowledge in powerful ways, and positioning a new disciplinary approach to mental health. GMH seeks to cultivate and grow this emerging distinct discipline of ‘global mental health’, and the new knowledge and paradigms that should come from it.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信