↓ Skip to main content

Current situations and future directions for mental health system governance in Nepal: findings from a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
Title
Current situations and future directions for mental health system governance in Nepal: findings from a qualitative study
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0145-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nawaraj Upadhaya, Mark J. D. Jordans, Ruja Pokhrel, Dristy Gurung, Ramesh P. Adhikari, Inge Petersen, Ivan H. Komproe

Abstract

Assessing and understanding health systems governance is crucial to ensure accountability and transparency, and to improve the performance of mental health systems. There is a lack of systematic procedures to assess governance in mental health systems at a country level. The aim of this study was to appraise mental health systems governance in Nepal, with the view to making recommendations for improvements. In-depth individual interviews were conducted with national-level policymakers (n = 17) and district-level planners (n = 11). The interview checklist was developed using an existing health systems governance framework developed by Siddiqi and colleagues as a guide. Data analysis was done with NVivo 10, using the procedure of framework analysis. The mental health systems governance assessment reveals a few enabling factors and many barriers. Factors enabling good governance include availability of mental health policy, inclusion of mental health in other general health policies and plans, increasing presence of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and service user organizations in policy forums, and implementation of a few mental health projects through government-NGO collaborations. Legal and policy barriers include the failure to officially revise or fully implement the mental health policy of 1996, the existence of legislation and several laws that have discriminatory provisions for people with mental illness, and lack of a mental health act and associated regulations to protect against this. Other barriers include lack of a mental health unit within the Ministry of Health, absence of district-level mental health planning, inadequate mental health record-keeping systems, inequitable allocation of funding for mental health, very few health workers trained in mental health, and the lack of availability of psychotropic drugs at the primary health care level. In the last few years, some positive developments have emerged in terms of policy recognition for mental health, as well as the increased presence of NGOs, increased presence of service users or caregivers in mental health governance, albeit restricted to only some of its domains. However, the improvements at the policy level have not been translated into implementation due to lack of strong leadership and governance mechanisms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 165 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Lecturer 11 7%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 40 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 15%
Social Sciences 16 10%
Psychology 15 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 29 18%
Unknown 45 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,996,997
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#241
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,106
of 317,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.