首页> 外文OA文献 >WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) Intervention Guide:a systematic review of evidence from low- and middle-income countries
【2h】

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

机译:世卫组织心理健康差距行动计划(mhGAP)干预指南:对来自中低收入国家的证据的系统回顾

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

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.
机译:问题:尽管精神,神经和物质使用(MNS)疾病非常普遍,但服务需求和提供之间存在全球差距。世卫组织于2008年启动了《心理健康差距行动计划》(mhGAP),并于2010年启动了《干预指南》(mhGAP-IG)。收入国家(LMIC),使用临床决策协议。它针对的是非专业的初级保健受众,但也被各部委,非政府组织和学者用于90个国家/地区的心理健康服务扩展。这项审查旨在确定迄今为止在LMICs中实施mhGAP-IG的证据。研究选择和分析:我们搜索了MEDLINE,Embase,PsycINFO,Web of Knowledge / Web of Science,Scopus,CINAHL,LILACS,SciELO / Web of Science,Cochrane ,Pubmed数据库和Google学术搜索,用于以任何语言报告LMIC中mhGAP-IG的证据,经验或评估。数据是从纳入的论文中提取的,但是异质性阻止了荟萃分析。结果:我们迄今为止对LMIC中mhGAP-IG的实施和评估进行了系统的证据回顾。包括33项研究在内的研究报告了15项培训课程,9项临床实施,3项国家背景,3种经济模式,2项用作控制干预措施以及1项用于制定评分量表。我们的审查确定了有关该领域背景挑战的详细报告,详细的方案,定性研究和随机对照试验的重要性。结论:相对于其他已发表的临床实践指南评估,mhGAP-IG文献是重要的:被忽视的领域。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号