A study of two models of primary mental health care provisions in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Despite its importance, mental health provisions are often limited. In 2015, Indonesia had only 773 psychiatrists for 250 million residents. This shortage of specialist mental health professionals is shared by most Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) and is reflected in the Treatment Gaps in this region indicating the very small proportion of people who receive adequate mental health care for their needs. While the median worldwide Treatment Gap for psychosis is 32.2% (Kohn et al., 2004), in Indonesia it is more than 90%. Experts suggested integrating mental health care into primary care, to help bridge this gap (Mendenhall et al., 2014). The systematic introduction of the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Programme into primary care clinics across Indonesia and the presence of a 15-year-old co-location of Clinical Psychologists in Yogyakarta province’s primary care clinics presented an opportunity to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of both frameworks. Methods This research (“the trial”) set out to develop an approach, and then implement it, to compare the adapted WHO mhGAP framework with the existing specialist framework within primary mental health services in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, through a pragmatic, two-arm cluster randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. This design enabled an examination of patients derived from whole populations in a ‘real world’ setting. The trial involved two phases: a pilot study in June 2016 with the objectives to refine data collection procedures and to serve as a practice run for clinicians involved in the trial; as well as a substantive trial beginning in December 2016. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was established as a ‘fairly accurate’ screening tool using a Receiver Operating Curve study. Using the GHQ scoring method of 0-0-1-1, a threshold of 1/2 was identified for use in clinical setting, i.e. the context of the trial. The primary outcome was the health and social functioning of participants as measured by the Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS) and secondary outcomes were disability as measured by WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), quality of life as measured by European Quality of Life Scale (EQ‐5D-3L), and cost of intervention evaluated from a health services perspective, which aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of both frameworks at six months. Results During the recruitment period, 4944 adult primary care patients attended 27 participating primary care centres. Following screening (n=1484) and in-depth psychiatric interviews (n=394), 174 WHO mhGAP arm and 151 Specialist arm participants received a formal diagnosis and were recruited into the trial. The number of required participants per treatment arm, to provide statistical power of 0.80 and statistical bilateral significance value of 0.05 was estimated to be 96. A total of 153 participants of the WHO mhGAP arm and 141 of the Specialist arm were followed-up at six months, representing 90.8% of all participants diagnosed. At follow-up, 82% (n=126) participants of the WHO mhGAP arm indicated they had attended at least one treatment session during the trial, significantly more than in the Specialist Arm (69%; n=97), 2 = 7.364, p=0.007. The WHO mhGAP arm was proven to be statistically not inferior to the Specialist arm in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Cost-effectiveness analyses show that the Specialist arm was dominant for a unit of improvement in patient outcomes at six months. While the framework is more expensive for the Health System, participants in the Specialist arm were found to have larger improvements. Conclusion Given that both frameworks yielded positive patient outcomes, there is no immediate need to increase the absolute number of specialist mental health professionals in community psychiatry (i.e. replicate the specialist framework outside Yogyakarta). As most psychologists and psychiatrists in Indonesia reside in large cities, the current systematic roll-out of the adapted WHO mhGAP framework might address the need to strengthen non-stigmatising mental health care within community contexts, reflecting the preferences of primary care patients. In districts or provinces which could afford the additional cost, however, the Specialist framework was shown to be better at improving patient outcomes than the adapted WHO mhGAP framework. Existing resources for specialist care can be arranged in a hub-and-spoke (step-up care) model where higher-level interventions are provided for those with greater needs. The proposed model would free-up resources for advanced clinical training of the specialist workforce in key areas of need while keeping specialist services accessible. Trial Registration This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov since 25 February 2016, NCT02700490. Ehical Standards Full ethics approval from the University of Cambridge, UK was received on 15 December 2015 (PRE.2015.108) and from Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia on 14 April 2016 (1237/SD/PL.03.07/IV/2016). A condition of ethics approval from the University of Cambridge is that the investigator is covered by indemnity insurance and that participants are insured for the period of their participation. This was provided by the University of Cambridge Trial Insurance Office (609/M/C/1510). Ethics approval from all the clusters was not required as each cluster (Puskesmas) is a local GP surgery which does not have its own ethics committee. Instead, approval to conduct research at the province of Yogyakarta including all five districts: Kota Yogyakarta, Sleman, Gunung Kidul, Kulon Progo, Bantul Districts was obtained from the Provincial Government Office (070/REG/V/625/5/2016) following ethics approvals. Written consent to participate was obtained from clinicians taking part as well as all patient-participants.Gates Cambridge Scholarshi

Perceived causes of mental illness and views on appropriate care pathways among Indonesians.

BackgroundThe mental health system in Indonesia comprises attempts to modernise a colonial relic. There is still a disconnect between available services and help-seeking behaviours at the grassroots level. This study aims to explore the perceptions of Javanese people on the aetiology of mental illness and their ideas on how to deal with individuals who may have mental illness.MethodsThis qualitative study involves semi-structured interviews, embedded in a cluster randomised trial examining the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary mental health services. Interviews were conducted with Indonesian and Javanese. The recruitment procedure was aligned to the trial. Participants were primary care patients recruited from 21 sites across Yogyakarta province. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts.Results75 participants took part in the study: 51 women (68%) and 24 men (32%). Key themes emerged around perceived causes of mental health problems (including 'extrinsic factors'; 'intrinsic factors'; and 'spiritual factors'), and perceived appropriate pathways of care ('modern medical science'; 'social support and activities'; and 'religious or spiritual interventions'). Gender potentially influenced some of the responses.ConclusionsThemes indicate the variety of preconceptions towards mental health problems and assumptions regarding the best management pathways. Some of these preconceptions and assumptions support the utility of modern medical care, while the rest promote spiritual or religious healers. Participants' ideas of the appropriate care pathways largely correspond to their perception of what the symptoms are caused by. Despite hints to some understanding of the bio-psycho-social model of mental illness, most participants did not capture the complexity of mental health and illness, indicating the importance of contextual (especially culturally and religiously-aligned) public education around mental health, illness and care

Can General Practitioners manage mental disorders in primary care? A partially randomised, pragmatic, cluster trial

BackgroundFor a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care.MethodsIn this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment.All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months.Results153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY.ConclusionGeneral Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT0270049

Can General Practitioners manage mental disorders in primary care? A partially randomised, pragmatic, cluster trial.

BACKGROUND:For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS:In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS:153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION:General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490

Can General Practitioners manage mental disorders in primary care? A partially randomised, pragmatic, cluster trial.

BACKGROUND:For a decade, experts have suggested integrating mental health care into primary care to help bridge mental health Treatment Gap. General Practitioners (GPs) are the first port-of-call for many patients with mental ill-health. In Indonesia, the WHO mhGAP is being systematically introduced to its network of 10,000 primary care clinics as an add-on mental health training for pairs of GPs and Nurses, since the end of 2015. In one of 34 provinces, there exists an integrated care model: the co-location of clinical psychologists in primary care clinics. This trial evaluates patient outcomes among those provided mental health care by GPs with those treated by clinical psychologists in primary care. METHODS:In this partially-randomised, pragmatic, two-arm cluster non-inferiority trial, 14 primary care clinics were assigned to receive the WHO mhGAP training and 14 clinics with the co-location framework were assigned to the Specialist arm. Participants (patients) were blinded to the existence of the other pathway, and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. All adult primary care patients who screened positive for psychiatric morbidity were eligible. GPs offered psychosocial and/or pharmacological interventions and Clinical Psychologists offered psychosocial interventions. The primary outcome was health and social functioning as measured by the HoNOS and secondary outcomes include disability measured by WHODAS 2.0, health-related quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, and resource use and costs evaluated from a health services perspective, at six months. RESULTS:153 patients completed the outcome assessment following GP care alongside 141 patients following Clinical Psychologists care. Outcomes of GP care were proven to be statistically not inferior to Clinical Psychologists in reducing symptoms of social and physical impairment, reducing disability, and improving health-related quality of life at six months. Economic analyses indicate lower costs and better outcomes in the Specialist arm and suggest a 50% probability of WHO mhGAP framework being cost-effective at the Indonesian willingness to pay threshold per QALY. CONCLUSION:General Practitioners supported by nurses in primary care clinics could effectively manage mild to moderate mental health issues commonly found among primary care patients. They provide non-stigmatising mental health care within community context, helping to reduce the mental health Treatment Gap. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02700490