Developing Biopsychosocial Research on Maternal Mental Health in Malawi: Community Perspectives and Concerns

How and why to use 'vulnerability': an interdisciplinary analysis of disease risk, indeterminacy and normality

In recent years, 'vulnerability' has been getting more traction in theoretical, professional and popular spaces as an alternative or complement to the concept of risk. As a group of science and technology studies scholars with different disciplinary orientations yet a shared concern with biomedicine, self and society, we investigate how vulnerability has become a salient and even dominant idiom for discussing disease and disease risk. We argue that this is at least partly due to an inherent indeterminacy in what 'vulnerability' means and does, both within and across different discourses. Through a review of feminist and disability theory, and a discussion of how vulnerability and disease both get recruited into a binary conceptualisation of normal versus abnormal, we argue that vulnerability's indeterminacy is, in fact, its strength, and that it should be used differently than risk. Using COVID-19 management in the UK as an illustration of the current ambivalence and ambiguity in how vulnerability versus risk is applied, we suggest that instead of being codified or quantified, as it has started to be in some biomedical and public health applications, vulnerability and its remedies should be determined in conjunction with affected communities and in ways that are polyvalent, flexible and nuanced. The concept of vulnerability encapsulates an important precept: we must recognise inequality as undesirable while not attempting to 'solve' it in deterministic ways. Rather than becoming fixed into labels, unidirectional causalities or top-down universalising metrics, vulnerability could be used to insist on relational, context-specific understandings of disease and disease risk-in line with contemporary social justice movements that require non-hierarchical and non-universal approaches to problems and solutions.

Postpartum psychosis: a public involvement perspective across three continents

Postpartum psychosis is a psychiatric emergency that is currently not represented in diagnostic systems, to the detriment of people with lived experience. Engaging with stakeholders offers an important avenue to improve clinical practice and make research more impactful, by providing perspectives based on first-hand, expert experience. There is a paucity of reports on stakeholders' engagement in psychiatry. Activities have thus far been limited to Western countries and there are few reports on postpartum psychosis. We report the results of public involvement activities (in the form of discussion groups) with key stakeholders in India, Malawi and the UK. These discussions centred around the clinical picture of postpartum psychosis and the terminologies used to describe these episodes. Seven major areas were highlighted: how postpartum psychosis is handled within services, common symptoms and characteristics, impact of episode, barriers to care, non-medical approaches, terminology and research areas of interest. According to the discussions, postpartum psychosis presents similarly across countries, although there are differences in access to services, approaches to mental health and terminologies used within and across countries. With this understanding comes the foundation for cross-cultural assessment, service improvement and a stakeholder-informed research agenda.

Maternal mental health research in Malawi: Community and healthcare provider perspectives on acceptability and ethicality

Maternal mental health (MMH) is recognised as globally significant. The prevalence of depression and factors associated with its onset among perinatal women in Malawi has been previously reported, and the need for further research in this domain is underscored. Yet, there is little published scholarship regarding the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research to women and community representatives. The study reported here sought to address this in Malawi by engaging with communities and healthcare providers in the districts where MMH research was being planned. Qualitative data was collected in Lilongwe and Karonga districts through 20 focus group discussions and 40 in-depth interviews with community representatives and healthcare providers from January through April 2021. All focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim (in local languages Chichewa and Tumbuka), translated into English, and examined through thematic content analysis. Participants' accounts suggest that biopsychosocial MMH research could be broadly acceptable within the communities sampled, with acceptability framed in part through prior encounters with biomedical and public health research and care in these regions, alongside broader understandings of the import of MMH. Willingness and consent to participate do not depend on specifically biomedical understandings of MMH, but rather on familiarity with individuals regarded as living with mental ill-health. However, the data further suggest some 'therapeutic misconceptions' about MMH research, with implications for how investigations in this area are presented by researchers when recruiting and working with participants. Further studies are needed to explore whether accounts of the acceptability and ethicality of MMH research shift and change during and following research encounters. Such studies will enhance the production of granular recommendations for further augmenting the ethicality of biomedical and public health research and researchers' responsibilities to participants and communities.

Psychosis Recovery Orientation in Malawi by Improving Services and Engagement (PROMISE) protocol

Malawi has a population of around 20 million people and is one of the world's most economically deprived nations. Severe mental illness (largely comprising psychoses and severe mood disorders) is managed by a very small number of staff in four tertiary facilities, aided by clinical officers and nurses in general hospitals and clinics. Given these constraints, psychosis is largely undetected and untreated, with a median duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) of around six years. Our aim is to work with people with lived experience (PWLE), caregivers, local communities and health leaders to develop acceptable and sustainable psychosis detection and management systems to increase psychosis awareness, reduce DUP, and to improve the health and lives of people with psychosis in Malawi. We will use the UK Medical Research Council guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions, including qualitative work to explore diverse perspectives around psychosis detection, management, and outcomes, augmented by co-design with PWLE, and underpinned by a Theory of Change. Planned deliverables include a readily usable management blueprint encompassing education and community supports, with an integrated care pathway that includes Primary Health Centre clinics and District Mental Health Teams. PWLE and caregivers will be closely involved throughout to ensure that the interventions are shaped by the communities concerned. The effect of the interventions will be assessed with a quasi-experimental sequential implementation in three regions, in terms of DUP reduction, symptom remission, functional recovery and PWLE / caregiver impact, with quality of life as the primary outcome. As the study team is focused on long-term impact, we recognise the importance of having embedded, robust evaluation of the programme as a whole. We will therefore evaluate implementation processes and outcomes, and cost-effectiveness, to demonstrate the value of this approach to the Ministry of Health, and to encourage longer-term adoption across Malawi.