ObjectivesThis study sought to use a population-based cross-sectional survey to describe depression prevalence, healthcare seeking and associations with socioeconomic determinants in a district in North India.SettingThis study was conducted in Sahaspur and Raipur, administrative blocks of Dehradun district, Uttarakhand, in July 2014.ParticipantsA population-based sample of 960 people over the age of 18 years was selected in 30 randomised clusters after being stratified by rural:urban census ratios.Primary outcome measuresThe survey used a validated screening tool, Patient Health Questionnaire, to identify people with depression, and collected information regarding socioeconomic variables and help-seeking behaviours. Depression prevalence and health seeking behaviours were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between risk factors and depression.ResultsPrevalence of depression was 6% (58/960), with a further 3.9% (37/960) describing a depressive episode of over 2 weeks in the past 12 months. Statistically significant adjusted OR for depression of more than 2 were found for people who were illiterate, classified as Scheduled Caste/Tribe or Other Backward Castes, living in temporary material housing and who had recently taken a loan. While over three quarters of people with depression (79%) had attended a private or government general medical practitioner in the past 3 months, none had received talking therapy (100% treatment gap) and two people (3.3%) had been prescribed antidepressants.ConclusionsThere are clear associations between social, educational and economic disadvantage and depression in this population. Strategies that address the social determinants of depression, such as education, social exclusion, financial protection and affordable housing for all are indicated. To address the large treatment gap in Uttarakhand, we must ensure access to primary and secondary mental health providers who can recognise and appropriately manage depression.

No abstract

ObjectivesThis study used a population-based cross-sectional survey to describe the prevalence of psychosocial disability and unmet need for access to services in North India.SettingThis study was conducted in Dehradun district, Uttarakhand, in 2014.ParticipantsA population-based sample of 2441 people over the age of 18 years.Primary outcome measuresThe Rapid Assessment of Disability survey tool identified people with disability and used an adapted version of the Kessler scale to identify those with psychosocial disability. It additionally collected information on socioeconomic variables, access to community services and barriers to participation. Prevalence of psychosocial disability and unmet needs and descriptions of barriers to services were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations between risk factors and psychosocial disability.ResultsPrevalence of psychosocial disability was 4.8% and 75% of participants with psychological distress also reported comorbid functional impairments. Adjusted ORs for depression of more than two were found for people who were unschooled, unemployed and of moderate or poor socioeconomic status. The unmet need for access to services was significantly higher in every domain for people with psychosocial disability and was more than 25% in the areas of employment, health service access and community consultation. People with psychosocial disability encountered greater barriers in each domain compared with controls.ConclusionsPeople who are poor, uneducated and unemployed are two to four times more likely to have psychosocial disability in Dehradun district. They face unmet needs in accessing community services and perceive negative social attitudes, lack of physical accessibility and lack of information as barriers limiting their participation. Social policy must increase access to education and reduce poverty but additionally ensure action is taken in all community services to increase information, physical accessibility and social inclusion of people with psychosocial and other forms of disability.

Background: Disabled People's Organisations (DPOs) are the mainstay of disability responses worldwide. Yet there is no quantitative data assessing their effectiveness in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to measure the effectiveness of DPOs as a low-cost intervention to improve well-being and access to services and facilities for people with disabilities. Methods: We undertook a cluster randomised intervention control trial across 39 distinct rural villages in Uttarakhand State, North India. A total of 527 participants were included from 39 villages: 302 people from 20 villages were assigned to the intervention arm and 225 from 19 villages were assigned to the control group. Over a 2-year period, people with disabilities were facilitated to form DPOs with regular home visits. Participants were also given financial support for public events and exposure visits to other DPOs. Seven domains were used to measure access and participation. Results: DPO formation had improved participation in community consultations (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.72), social activities (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.38), DPOs (OR 14.78, 95% CI 1.43 to 152.43), access to toilet facilities (OR 3.89, 95% CI 1.31 to 11.57), rehabilitation (OR 6.83, 95% CI 2.4 to 19.42) and Government social welfare services (OR 4.82, 95% CI 2.35 to 9.91) in intervention when compared to the control. People who were part of a DPO had an improvement in having their opinion heard (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.24) and being able to make friends (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1 to 2.65) compared to those who were not part of a DPO. All other well-being variables had little evidence despite greater improvement in the DPO intervention group. Conclusions: This is the first randomised control trial to demonstrate that DPOs in LMICs are effective at improving participation, access and well-being. This study supports the ongoing role of DPOs in activities related to disability inclusion and disability services. This study also suggests that supporting the establishment, facilitation and strengthening of DPOs is a cost-effective intervention and role that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can play. Trial registration: ISRCTN36867362, 9th Oct 2019 (retrospectively registered).

Background: Disabled Peoples’ Organisations (DPOs) are organisations established by and for people with disabilities. Formation of Disabled Peoples’ Groups (DPGs) and DPOs in low- and middle-income countries is currently one method for implementing disability-inclusive development strategies. While there is evidence that such groups can achieve beneficial outcomes for people with disabilities, they seem to form and function differently in different settings and little is understood about why this is the case. This study aimed to explore how and why different factors affect the development and operation of DPGs by investigating the contextual factors and mechanisms that enable and hinder the formation and functioning of DPGs in North India. Methods: This study adopted a realist approach to evaluation. Preliminary context-mechanism-outcome configurations were developed, tested empirically, and refined by undertaking five case studies in the state of Uttarakhand, India. Results: Results from this study were grouped under the broad, emergent themes of factors related to: 1) external supports; 2) community and physical environment; and 3) group composition. It was found that external entities could support the development of DPGs by advocating for the rights of people with disabilities, and providing information, knowledge, and funding to groups. Support from local village leadership was central to facilitating group formation and functioning, but the benefit of this support was amplified when DPGs formed strong networks with other similar groups. DPGs displayed a capacity for stimulating positive societal changes in regard to disability through influencing societal understandings of disability, and improving inclusion and participation of people with disabilities. Conclusions: While the results of this study were specific to the context in which it was undertaken, many findings were consistent with those in the literature, suggesting that there may be common principles that can be applied to other contexts. By providing insight into the contextual factors that affected DPG formation and function, the findings of this study may assist those involved in DPG formation to adapt models and methods to better suit specific contexts.