Collaborative care for child and youth mental health problems in a middle-income country: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial training general practitioners

Effect of General Practitioner Training in a Collaborative Child Mental Health Care Program on Children's Mental Health Outcomes in a Low-Resource Setting: A Cluster Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

Integrated care for children is rarely studied, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where generalists often provide mental health care.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the effect of adding a child and youth component to an existing adult collaborative care program on mental health outcomes and receipt of care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized trial was conducted within an adult collaborative care program in Tehran, Iran. General practitioners (GPs), their 5- to 15-year-old patients, and patients' parents were included. Children and youths coming for routine medical visits who scored greater than the cutoff on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were followed up for 6 months. The study was conducted from May 2018 to October 2019, and analysis was conducted from March 2020 to August 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

GPs were randomized to either a 2.5-day training on managing common child mental health problems (intervention) or refresher training on identification and referral (control).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was change in SDQ total problems score; secondary outcomes included discussion of psychosocial issues by the GPs and receipt of mental health care during the follow-up period.

RESULTS

Overall, 49 GPs cared for 389 children who scored greater than the cutoff on the SDQ (216 children in intervention group, 173 in control group). Patients' mean (SD) age was 8.9 (2.9) years (range, 5 to 15 years), and 182 (47%) were female patients. At 6 months, children in the intervention group had greater odds of receiving mental health care during the study (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.7), parents were more likely to report that intervention GPs had discussed parent (OR, 2.1; 95% Cl, 1.1 to 3.8) and child (OR, 2.0; 95% Cl, 0.9 to 4.8) psychosocial issues, and intervention GPs were more likely to say they had provided counseling (OR, 1.8; 95% Cl, 1.02 to 3.3). However, there was no greater improvement in SDQ scores among children seen by intervention vs control GPs. Adjusted for clustering within GP, the variables used for balanced allocation (practice size, practice ownership, and study wave), and the other variables associated with change in SDQ scores over time, there was not a significant time-treatment interaction at either the 3- or 6-month follow-up points (linear combination of coefficients for intervention, 0.57 [95% CI, -1.07 to 2.22] and -0.08 [95%CI, -1.76 to 1.56], respectively). In a subgroup of GPs with practices composed of 50% or more children, children seen by intervention GPs improved to a significantly greater extent (-3.6 points; 95% CI, -6.7 to -0.46 points; effect size d = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.01) compared with those seen by control GPs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized trial, GP training on managing common child mental health problems did not demonstrate greater improvement in child SDQ scores. Child mental health training for GPs in collaborative care can improve children's access to mental health care, but prior experience working with children and their families may be required for GPs to use a brief training in a way that improves child outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03144739.

Primary-level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Community-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care.  SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019).   SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs.  PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs).  Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes.  For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects.  Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention.  MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs).  Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination.  Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2.  "Probably", "may", or "uncertain" indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence.   Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08); d. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53); e. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03); f. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists);  g. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death). Women with perinatal depression (PND) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54); b. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14); c. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04); d. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death);  e. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs. Adults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings LHW-led interventions a. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15); b. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15); c. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led interventions a. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.   Adults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74); b. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and  functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03); c. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11);  d. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs. PHP/CP-led interventions a. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10); b. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence); c. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs. PW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence a. may have uncertain effects.  Adults with severe mental disorders *Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1. LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11);  b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs.  PHP-led or collaborative-care a. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47); b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU.  Adults with dementia and carers PHP/LHW-led carer interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08); b. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13);  c. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs. Children with PTS or CMDs LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14); b. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13);  c. may have little-or-no effect on AEs. CP-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs;  b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.