Evidence-based Mental Health Policy Research Articles

Mental health of the Slovak population during COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUNDPopulation’s mental health surveillance is essential for knowing the distribution of mental well-being and mental disorders in the society. This allows for the establishment, evaluation, and revision of preventive measures and curative services. The results of such monitoring should serve as a database for evidence-based mental health policy. Mental disorders are among the top ten causes of burden globally and crisis situations such as the pandemic increase the risk of mental health problems, as they cause constant fear of contagion and the implementation of restrictive measures. The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the general population of the Slovak Republic has not yet been studied. The hypothesis was that more than one fifth of the population (women to a greater extent) will have symptoms of anxiety and depression.AIMTo assess the mental health of the general Slovak population aged 15 years and older in the summer of 2021 by determining the prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms.METHODSAn anonymous cross-sectional survey was implemented in a sample of 1501 respondents in the summer of 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. The inclusion criteria were age of 15 years and older and ability to complete the survey questionnaire online or in a face-to-face interview. The survey assessed anxiety symptoms by the seven-item general anxiety disorder and depressive symptoms by the nine-item patient health questionnaire instruments. Recognized cut-off scores of 10 or greater were used for both. RESULTSAnxiety symptoms were present in 19.32% and depression in 24.65% of the sample. Symptoms of both disorders were more common in females: 15.00% of males and 24.00% of females experienced anxiety symptoms, and 19.00% of males and 30.00% of females experienced symptoms of depression. Symptoms of both disorders were the most common in the youngest age group (15-25 years old): One fifth of males (20.29%) and one third of females (35.32%) had symptoms of anxiety, and 26.09% males and 43.79% females had symptoms of depression. Mean score for anxiety was 5.44 [standard deviations (SD) = 4.96] for the overall sample, 6.15 (SD = 5.14) for females, and 4.67 (SD = 4.63) for males. The youngest females of the 15-25 years age group had the highest score (7.55, SD = 5.27) among all age groups, for both sexes. Mean score for depression was 6.74 for the overall sample (SD = 5.75), 7.43 for females (SD = 5.87), and 5.99 (SD = 5.52) for males. The highest depression score was observed in the youngest females of the 15-25 years age group (9.34, SD = 6.07). We found a significant association between anxiety or depressive symptoms and younger age [odds ratio (OR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.45 and OR: 1.65, 95%CI: 1.17-2.34, respectively], being female (OR: 1.86, 95%CI: 1.42-2.42 and OR: 1.76, 95%CI: 0.20-0.29, respectively), and having primary education (OR: 1.66, 95%CI: 1.08-2.54 and OR: 1.65, 95%CI: 1.16-2.63, respectively).CONCLUSIONResults of our study indicate that anxiety and depression are frequent in the Slovak Republic during the COVID-19 pandemic. This important observation should serve as an information basis for the development of effective mental health policies, consisting of preventive programs, and early detection and effective treatment services. The study results provide strong argument for the necessity of mental health reform that is currently being shaped in the Slovak Republic.

EVITA 2.0, an updated framework for understanding evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting: tested and informed by key informant interviews in a multilevel comparative case study

BackgroundMental health remains a neglected issue on the global health policy agenda, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and the translation of research evidence into policy and practice is slow. The new EVITA framework was developed to improve mental health evidence uptake and policy agenda-setting in LMICs. In addition, behavioural science methods may be able to support knowledge translation to policy.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods study design, we applied and tested the newly developed EVITA 1.1 framework against three case studies related to South Africa at the district, national and international levels. In-depth interviews with 26 experts were conducted between August and November 2019, transcribed, coded and analysed in NVivo, using iterative categorization. The data were analysed against both the EVITA framework and the MINDSPACE framework for behavioural insights.ResultsIn our case study comparison, we found that (1) research translation to the policy agenda occurs in a complex, fluid system which includes multiple “research clouds”, “policy spheres” and other networks; (2) mental health research policy agenda-setting is based on key individuals and intermediaries and their interrelationships; and (3) key challenges and strategies for successful research to policy agenda impact are known, but are frequently not strategically implemented, such as including all stakeholders to overcome the policy implementation gap. Our data also suggest that behavioural science methods can be strategically applied to support knowledge translation to policy agenda-setting.ConclusionWe found that the EVITA framework is useful for understanding and improving mental health research policy interrelationships to support evidence uptake to the policy agenda, and that behavioural science methods are effective support mechanisms. The revised EVITA 2.0 framework therefore includes behavioural insights, for improved mental health policy agenda-setting in LMICs. More research is needed to understand whether EVITA can be applied to other LMICs and to high-income contexts.

Economic Evaluations of Mental Health Programs for Children and Adolescents in the United States: A Systematic Review

The United States (US) spent 201 billion dollars on mental health-related concerns in 2016, ranking mental illness as the leading cause of disability and the single largest source of economic burden worldwide. With mental health-related treatment costs and economic burden only projected to rise, there is an increasing need for cost-inclusive evaluations of mental health interventions in the US. This systematic review evaluated the intervention characteristics and the quality of 9 economic evaluation studies (e.g., cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit) of youth mental health services conducted in the US from 2003 to 2019. Existing evaluations suggest that certain mental health interventions for youth, among the few that have been formally evaluated, may be cost-effective and cost-beneficial. However, intervention characteristics were generally homogenous, a majority of studies did not adhere to the standard of economic evaluations of the CHEERS checklist, and outcome measures were not consistently clinically useful, limiting the utility of such youth mental health economic evaluations to policymakers. By adhering to standards of economic evaluations and diversifying the characteristics of interventions subject to economic evaluations, intervention researchers can increase confidence in conclusions about which youth mental health interventions are cost-effective or cost-beneficial and more meaningfully inform evidence-based mental health policy.

The EVITA evidence action tool to improve evidence-based policymaking for public mental health

Abstract The estimated global disease burden of mental illness is 32.4% of years lived with disability. Mental health is a critical determinant for public health, and government-level action is needed for integration of mental health into public health. But in many low/middle-income countries (LMICs) mental health is absent on the policy agenda, despite up to 90% of people with mental illness lacking treatment. Evidence on cost-effective treatments is available, but translation of research into policy is a 'wicked' problem and often fails. We investigate the inter-relationships of research evidence and mental health policymaking in LMICs and present a framework/advocacy tool to guide and support evidence-based public mental health policymaking. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted a systematic review, based on which we developed a provisional framework (EVITA), revised and validated it through expert in-depth interviews. We then empirically tested the EVITA framework against three case studies (provincial, national, global level, South Africa). We collected qualitative data through expert interviews/documentary analysis, coded and analysed the data in NVivo, and finalised the framework and action tool. We identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Thus we developed the EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda-setting, and validated it against empirical case studies. Our findings suggest that behavioural methods can support interventions to improve research uptake. The EVITA action tool has been theoretically and empirically validated, and includes policy agenda-setting and behavioural methods as a novel, effective mechanisms for improving evidence-based policymaking in public mental health. EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy/practice in LMICs, and may be applicable to other neglected health areas/countries. Key messages The new validated EVITA framework uses agenda-setting and behavioural methods to improve knowledge exchange for better evidence-informed, potentially more effective, public mental health policymaking. The EVITA action tool helps researchers, policymakers & others to strategically take action for public mental health agenda-setting and advocacy interventions for evidence-based policymaking in LMICs.

The EVITA framework for evidence-based mental health policy agenda setting in low- and middle-income countries.

The burden of mental illness is excessive, but many countries lack evidence-based policies to improve practice. Mental health research evidence translation into policymaking is a ‘wicked problem’, often failing despite a robust evidence base. In a recent systematic review, we identified a gap in frameworks on agenda setting and actionability, and pragmatic, effective tools to guide action to link research and policy are needed. Responding to this gap, we developed the new EVITA 1.1 (EVIdence To Agenda setting) conceptual framework for mental health research–policy interrelationships in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We (1) drafted a provisional framework (EVITA 1.0); (2) validated it for specific applicability to mental health; (3) conducted expert in-depth interviews to (a) validate components and mechanisms and (b) assess intelligibility, functionality, relevance, applicability and effectiveness. To guide interview validation, we developed a simple evaluation framework. (4) Using deductive framework analysis, we coded and identified themes and finalized the framework (EVITA 1.1). Theoretical agenda-setting elements were added, as targeting the policy agenda-setting stage was found to lead to greater policy traction. The framework was validated through expert in-depth interviews (n = 13) and revised. EVITA 1.1 consists of six core components [advocacy coalitions, (en)actors, evidence generators, external influences, intermediaries and political context] and four mechanisms (capacity, catalysts, communication/relationship/partnership building and framing). EVITA 1.1 is novel and unique because it very specifically addresses the mental health research–policy process in LMICs and includes policy agenda setting as a novel, effective mechanism. Based on a thorough methodology, and through its specific design and mechanisms, EVITA has the potential to improve the challenging process of research evidence translation into policy and practice in LMICs and to increase the engagement and capacity of mental health researchers, policy agencies/planners, think tanks, NGOs and others within the mental health research–policy interface. Next, EVITA 1.1 will be empirically tested in a case study.

An audience research study to disseminate evidence about comprehensive state mental health parity legislation to US State policymakers: protocol

BackgroundA large proportion of the US population has limited access to mental health treatments because insurance providers limit the utilization of mental health services in ways that are more restrictive than for physical health services. Comprehensive state mental health parity legislation (C-SMHPL) is an evidence-based policy intervention that enhances mental health insurance coverage and improves access to care. Implementation of C-SMHPL, however, is limited. State policymakers have the exclusive authority to implement C-SMHPL, but sparse guidance exists to inform the design of strategies to disseminate evidence about C-SMHPL, and more broadly, evidence-based treatments and mental illness, to this audience. The aims of this exploratory audience research study are to (1) characterize US State policymakers’ knowledge and attitudes about C-SMHPL and identify individual- and state-level attributes associated with support for C-SMHPL; and (2) integrate quantitative and qualitative data to develop a conceptual framework to disseminate evidence about C-SMHPL, evidence-based treatments, and mental illness to US State policymakers.MethodsThe study uses a multi-level (policymaker, state), mixed method (QUAN→qual) approach and is guided by Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework, adapted to incorporate constructs from Aarons’ Model of Evidence-Based Implementation in Public Sectors. A multi-modal survey (telephone, post-mail, e-mail) of 600 US State policymakers (500 legislative, 100 administrative) will be conducted and responses will be linked to state-level variables. The survey will span domains such as support for C-SMHPL, knowledge and attitudes about C-SMHPL and evidence-based treatments, mental illness stigma, and research dissemination preferences. State-level variables will measure factors associated with C-SMHPL implementation, such as economic climate and political environment. Multi-level regression will determine the relative strength of individual- and state-level variables on policymaker support for C-SMHPL. Informed by survey results, semi-structured interviews will be conducted with approximately 50 US State policymakers to elaborate upon quantitative findings. Then, using a systematic process, quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated and a US State policymaker-focused C-SMHPL dissemination framework will be developed.DiscussionStudy results will provide the foundation for hypothesis-driven, experimental studies testing the effects of different dissemination strategies on state policymakers’ support for, and implementation of, evidence-based mental health policy interventions.

What Kind of Evidence do we Need for Evidence-Based Mental Health Policy? The Case of the Better Access Initiative

In this issue of the journal, Jane Pirkis and colleagues report some of the core fi ndings from the evaluation of the Better Access scheme that was funded by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging [1]. This report, along with others [2 – 5], provides some of the fi rst evaluations of this innovative government program. As is noted in the companion editorial by Tony Jorm [6], the program is signifi cantly more expensive than was projected; the Department of Health and Ageing initially estimated forward expenditure on the program of AU $ 538 million over 4 years. The cost over this period is now understood to be about triple that fi gure. In a context where every dollar of public mental health spending is hard won by the sector, the effectiveness of this program becomes a critical matter. If it is effective, then it represents one of the most signifi cant, and praiseworthy, expansions of mental health services ever instigated in public policy. Indeed, if the program is effective, the fact that it has become much more costly than expected refl ects not only the popularity of the program with consumers and referrers, but will presumably result in an even more benefi cial impact on the nation ’ s mental health. However, if it is not effective, then the program represents misspent public funds and an enormous opportunity cost in the sense that the money could be spent on other programs that might be much more infl uential in improving the mental health of Australians. Perhaps because of these considerations, along with the fact that the scheme has the potential to aggravate professional rivalries, both between and within the professions, the program has attracted some controversy – often from commentators who lack any data to back up either their criticism or defence of the scheme. For this reason the recent evaluations of the scheme, including the paper in the current issue, are to be welcomed as they have the potential to serve as a vital resource in this important public debate. Indeed, in the companion editorial by Professor Jorm [6], he clearly lays out a series of criticisms that have been levelled at the scheme, and gives a generally positive scorecard for Better Access, largely based on these recent evaluations. Our interest here is not so much to comment on whether a positive or negative evaluation of the scheme can be made, but rather to comment on the limitations as to what conclusions can be drawn, given the very considerable methodological shortcomings of the evaluation. Indeed, we believe there are many key questions that are simply not answered by the current evaluation, in large part due to inadequate methodology. We fully appreciate the reasons why it would not have been possible to conduct a ‘ methodologically pristine ’ evaluation of the scheme, such as a traditional randomized controlled trial, in the current environment. Clearly signifi cant limitations apply to the evaluation that can be conducted of a government scheme that has already been rolled out on a nationwide basis (as noted by Prof Jorm [6]), and where limited fi nancial resources are made available for the evaluation (as alluded to by Pirkis and colleagues in their discussion of limitations [1]). It is also true to say, as Pirkis and colleagues do, that this evaluation is more rigorous than that applied to most government health spending – a clearly lamentable state of affairs. However, none of these limitations addresses the fundamental issue of whether the relevant questions have actually been answered. Just because an evaluation has been conducted

Lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in South Africa

Data on the lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in South Africa are of interest, not only for the purposes of developing evidence-based mental health policy, but also in view of South Africa's particular historical and demographic circumstances. A nationally representative household survey was conducted between 2002 and 2004 using the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to generate diagnoses. The data-set analysed included 4351 adult South Africans of all ethnic groups. Lifetime prevalence of DSM-IV/CIDI disorders was determined for anxiety disorders (15.8%), mood disorders (9.8%), substance use disorders (13.4%) and any disorder (30.3%). Lifetime prevalence of substance use disorders differed significantly across ethnic groups. Median age at onset was earlier for substance use disorders (21 years) than for anxiety disorders (32 years) or mood disorders (37 years). In comparison with data from other countries, South Africa has a particularly high lifetime prevalence of substance use disorders. These disorders have an early age at onset, providing an important target for the planning of local mental health services.

Evidence-based mental health policy: a critical appraisal.

Arguments for and against evidence-based psychiatry have mostly centred on its value for clinical practice and teaching. Now, however, use of the same paradigm in evaluating health care has generated new problems. To outline the development of evidence-based health care; to summarise the main critiques of this approach; to review the evidence now being employed to evaluate mental health care; and to consider how the evidence base might be improved. The following sources were monitored: publications on evidence-based psychiatry and health care since 1990; reports of randomised trials and meta-analytic reviews to the end of 2002; and official British publications on mental health policy. Although evidence-based health care is now being promulgated as a rational basis for mental health planning in Britain, its contributions to service evaluation have been distinctly modest. Only 10% of clinical trials and meta-analyses have been focused on effectiveness of services, and many reviews proved inconclusive. The current evidence-based approach is overly reliant on meta-analytic reviews, and is more applicable to specific treatments than to the care agencies that control their delivery. A much broader evidence base is called for, extending to studies in primary health care and the evaluation of preventive techniques.

Researchable questions to support evidence-based mental health policy concerning adult mental illness

Policy makers find much mental health research irrelevant to their concerns. What types of research would directly assist those who formulate policy? The two purposes of this paper are (i) to identify important gaps in completed research, particularly in relation to the National Service Framework (NSF) for Mental Health (Department of Health, 1999a) and the NHS Plan (NHS Confederation, 2001); and (ii) to translate these gaps into researchable questions that can contribute to a debate about the future research agenda for general adult mental health in England.