↓ Skip to main content

Contextualization of psychological treatments for government health systems in low-resource settings: group interpersonal psychotherapy for caregivers of children with nodding syndrome in Uganda

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 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
Contextualization of psychological treatments for government health systems in low-resource settings: group interpersonal psychotherapy for caregivers of children with nodding syndrome in Uganda
Published in
Implementation Science, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-018-0785-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byamah B. Mutamba, Brandon A. Kohrt, James Okello, Janet Nakigudde, Bernard Opar, Seggane Musisi, William Bazeyo, Joop de Jong

Abstract

Evidence for the effectiveness of psychological treatments in low- and middle-income countries is increasing. However, there is a lack of systematic approaches to guide implementation in government health systems. The objective of this study was to address this gap by employing the Replicating Effective Programs (REP) framework to guide contextualization of a psychological treatment in the Uganda public health system for caregivers of children affected by nodding syndrome, a neuropsychiatric disorder endemic to Sub-Saharan Africa associated with high morbidity and disability. To contextualize a psychological treatment, we followed the four components of the REP framework: pre-conditions, pre-implementation, implementation, and maintenance and evolution. A three-step process involved reviewing health services available for nodding syndrome-affected families and current evidence for psychological treatments, qualitative formative research, and analysis and documentation of implementation activities. Stakeholders included members of affected communities, health care workers, therapists, local government leaders, and Ministry of Health officials. Detailed written, audio, and video documentation of the implementation activities was used for content analysis. During the pre-condition component of REP, we selected group interpersonal therapy (IPT-G) because of its feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness in the local setting, and availability of locally developed training materials. During the pre-implementation component, we adapted the training, logistics, and technical assistance strategies in conjunction with government and stakeholder working groups. Adaptations included content modification based on qualitative research with caregivers of children with nodding syndrome. During the implementation component, training was shortened for feasibility with government health workers. Peer-to-peer supervision was selected as a sustainable quality assurance method. IPT-G delivered by community health workers was evaluated for fidelity, patient outcomes, and other process-level variables. More than 90% of beneficiaries completed the treatment program, which was effective in reducing caregiver and child mental health problems. With the Ministry of Health, we conducted preparatory activities for the maintenance and evolution component for scale-up throughout the country. The REP framework provides a systematic approach to guide contextualization of psychological treatments for delivery in low-resource public health systems. Specific recommendations are provided for REP's application in global mental health. ISRCTN11382067 ; 08/06/2016; retrospectively registered.

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 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Student > Master 21 13%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 53 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 13%
Social Sciences 18 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 59 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,084,648
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,034
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,031
of 329,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#34
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 329,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.