↓ Skip to main content

Process evaluations of task sharing interventions for perinatal depression in low and middle income countries (LMIC): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process evaluations of task sharing interventions for perinatal depression in low and middle income countries (LMIC): a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3030-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Memory Munodawafa, Sumaya Mall, Crick Lund, Marguerite Schneider

Abstract

Perinatal depression is common in low and middle income countries (LAMICs). Task sharing interventions have been implemented to treat perinatal depression in these settings, as a way of dealing with staff shortages. Task sharing allows lay health workers to provide services for less complex cases while being trained and supervised by specialists. Randomized controlled trials suggest that these interventions can be effective but there is limited qualitative information exploring barriers and facilitators to their implementation. This systematic review aims to systematically review current qualitative evidence of process evaluations of task sharing interventions for perinatal depression in LAMICs in relation to the United Kingdom (UK) Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for conducting process evaluations. We searched Medline/ PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of science for studies from LAMICS using search terms under the broad categories of: (a) "maternal depression'" (b) "intervention" (c) "lay counsellor" OR "community health worker" OR "non-specialist" and (d) "LAMICs". Abstracts were independently reviewed for inclusion by two authors. Full text articles were screened and data for included articles were extracted using a standard data extraction sheet. Qualitative synthesis of qualitative evidence was conducted. 8420 articles were identified from initial searches. Of these, 26 full text articles were screened for eligibility with only three studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Main findings revealed that participants identified the following crucial factors: contextual factors included physical location, accessibility and cultural norms. Implementation factors included acceptability of the intervention and characteristics of the personnel. Mechanisms included counsellor factors such as motivating and facilitating trust; intervention factors such as use of stories and visual aids, and understandability of the content; and participant factors such as shared experience, meeting learning needs, and meeting expectations. While task sharing has been suggested as an effective way of filling the treatment gap for perinatal depression, there is a paucity of qualitative research exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing these interventions. Qualitative process evaluations are crucial for the development of culturally relevant interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Social Sciences 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Psychology 11 13%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 26 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,820,901
of 15,369,664 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#837
of 5,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,254
of 280,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,369,664 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 280,040 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them