Co-production of a pictorial recovery tool for people with psycho-social disability informed by a participatory action research approach-a qualitative study set in India

Opening up the 'black-box': what strategies do community mental health workers use to address the social dimensions of mental health?

PURPOSE

Community-based workers promote mental health in communities. Recent literature has called for more attention to the ways they operate and the strategies used. For example, how do they translate biomedical concepts into frameworks that are acceptable and accessible to communities? How do micro-innovations lead to positive mental health outcomes, including social inclusion and recovery? The aim of this study was to examine the types of skills and strategies to address social dimensions of mental health used by community health workers (CHWs) working together with people with psychosocial disability (PPSD) in urban north India.

METHODS

We interviewed CHWs (n = 46) about their registered PPSD who were randomly selected from 1000 people registered with a local non-profit community mental health provider. Notes taken during interviews were cross-checked with audio recordings and coded and analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

CHWs displayed social, cultural, and psychological skills in forming trusting relationships and in-depth knowledge of the context of their client's lives and family dynamics. They used this information to analyze political, social, and economic factors influencing mental health for the client and their family members. The diverse range of analysis and intervention skills of community health workers built on contextual knowledge to implement micro-innovations in a be-spoke way, applying these to the local ecology of people with psychosocial disabilities (PPSD). These approaches contributed to addressing the social and structural determinants that shaped the mental health of PPSD.

CONCLUSION

Community health workers (CHWs) in this study addressed social aspects of mental health, individually, and by engaging with wider structural factors. The micro-innovations of CHWs are dependent on non-linear elements, including local knowledge, time, and relationships. Global mental health requires further attentive qualitative research to consider how these, and other factors shape the work of CHWs in different locales to inform locally appropriate mental health care.

People with mental illness stigmatize mental illness less: A comparison study between a hospital-based sample of people with mental illness and a non-clinical general population sample in urban India

Evidence shows that stigma negatively influences the quality of life of persons with severe mental illness. Nonetheless, stigma towards mental illness is lower among persons with a lived experience of mental illness compared to the rest of the population. Understanding the association between stigma of mental illness and the mental status of individuals living in urban India and whether this association is moderated by demographic factors opens a new avenue for prevention of social exclusion. Persons diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or severe unipolar depression (cases, n  =  647) were recruited from among hospital patients in New Delhi between November 2011 and June 2012 and matched with non-psychiatric urban dwellers by age, sex, and location of residence (controls, n  =  649). Propensity score matching with multivariable linear regression was used to test whether stigma towards mental illness, measured by a 13-item Stigma Questionnaire, differed between cases and controls. Cases reported significantly lower stigma scores than controls (b  =  -0.50, p < 0.0001). The strength of the association between mental illness and stigma was not affected after controlling for age, caste, sex, education, and employment status, while wealth marginally reduced the strength of the association. These findings suggest individuals with a lived experience of mental illness, in New Delhi, India, may be more tolerant towards mental illness and support the need to involve persons with lived experience in the development and implementation of health promotional campaigns and programs aimed at reducing stigma towards mental illness.

A collective autoethnography of coproduction in mental health research by academic researchers and young people in Brazil

INTRODUCTION

Coproduction of mental health research and interventions involving researchers and young people is increasingly common. However, this model raises challenges, related, for instance, to communication, power and control. This paper narrates-from a collective first-person perspective-the lived experience of coproduction of a digital intervention by institutional researchers and young citizen researchers in Brazil.

METHOD

This study employed a collaborative autoethnographic methodology, utilising autobiographical data such as meeting recordings, individual notes and collective guided reflections on the coproduction process. Our analysis focused on challenges and solutions that arose during the process.

RESULTS

Throughout the project, we created formal and informal mechanisms for accountability, transparency and fair inclusion of multiple voices. We engaged in mutual capacity-building, invested in building interpersonal knowledge, and implemented practices to reduce overload and promote equitable participation. Through ongoing reflection and readjustment in response to challenges, we progressively embraced more democratic and egalitarian values. The collective care invested in the process fostered synergy, trust, and intergroup friendship.

CONCLUSION

Our experience points to the value of creating a space for multiple research identities: the citizen young person and the institutional researcher, both of whom critically reflect on their roles in the research process. Our focus on coproduced care calls into question participation metaphors that represent the process via a single axis-young people-who linearly progress from minimal participation to full autonomy. Instead, our analysis highlights the importance of a social and caring bond that supports the radical co-production of innovative health solutions in contexts of vulnerability.

Developing relevant community mental health programmes in North India: five questions we ask when co-producing knowledge with experts by experience

Knowledge co-production can improve the quality and accessibility of health, and also benefit service users, allowing them to be recognised as skilled and capable. Yet despite these clear benefits, there are inherent challenges in the power relations of co-production, particularly when experts by experience (EBE) are structurally disadvantaged in communication skills or literacy. The processes of how knowledge is co-produced and negotiated are seldom described. This paper aims to describe processes of co-production building on the experiences of EBE (people with lived experience of psychosocial or physical disability), practitioners and researchers working together with a non-profit community mental health programme in North India. We describe processes of group formation, relationship building, reflexive discussion and negotiation over a 7-year period with six diverse EBE groups. Through a process of discussion and review, we propose these five questions which may optimise co-production processes in communities: (1) Who is included in co-production? (2) How can we optimise participation by people with diverse sociodemographic identities? (3) How do we build relationships of trust within EBE groups? (4) How can we combine psychosocial support and knowledge co-production agendas in groups? and (5) How is the expertise of experts by experience acknowledged?

Participatory mental health interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a realist review protocol

INTRODUCTION

The launch of the Movement for Global Mental Health brought long-standing calls for improved mental health interventions in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) to centre stage. Within the movement, the participation of communities and people with lived experience of mental health problems is argued as essential to successful interventions. However, there remains a lack of conceptual clarity around 'participation' in mental health interventions with the specific elements of participation rarely articulated. Our review responds to this gap by exploring how 'participation' is applied, what it means and what key mechanisms contribute to change in participatory interventions for mental health in LMICs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A realist review methodology will be used to identify the different contexts that trigger mechanisms of change, and the resulting outcomes related to the development and implementation of participatory mental health interventions, that is: what makes participation work in mental health interventions in LMICs and why? We augment our search with primary data collection in communities who are the targets of global mental health initiatives to inform the production of a programme theory on participation for mental health in LMICs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for focus group discussions (FGDs) was obtained in each country involved. FGDs will be conducted in line with WHO safety guidance during the COVID-19 crisis. The full review will be published in an academic journal, with further papers providing an in-depth analysis on community perspectives on participation in mental health. The project findings will also be shared on a website, in webinars and an online workshop.

Power analysis in health policy and systems research: a guide to research conceptualisation

Power is a growing area of study for researchers and practitioners working in the field of health policy and systems research (HPSR). Theoretical development and empirical research on power are crucial for providing deeper, more nuanced understandings of the mechanisms and structures leading to social inequities and health disparities; placing contemporary policy concerns in a wider historical, political and social context; and for contributing to the (re)design or reform of health systems to drive progress towards improved health outcomes. Nonetheless, explicit analyses of power in HPSR remain relatively infrequent, and there are no comprehensive resources that serve as theoretical and methodological starting points. This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a consolidated guide to researchers wishing to consider, design and conduct power analyses of health policies or systems. This practice article presents a synthesis of theoretical and conceptual understandings of power; describes methodologies and approaches for conducting power analyses; discusses how they might be appropriately combined; and throughout reflects on the importance of engaging with positionality through reflexive praxis. Expanding research on power in health policy and systems will generate key insights needed to address underlying drivers of health disparities and strengthen health systems for all.