Estimating the coverage of mental health programmes: a systematic review

Abstract

Background The large treatment gap for people suffering from mental disorders has led to initiatives to scale up mental health services. In order to track progress, estimates of programme coverage, and changes in coverage over time, are needed.Methods Systematic review of mental health programme evaluations that assess coverage, measured either as the proportion of the target population in contact with services (contact coverage) or as the proportion of the target population who receive appropriate and effective care (effective coverage). We performed a search of electronic databases and grey literature up to March 2013 and contacted experts in the field. Methods to estimate the numerator (service utilization) and the denominator (target population) were reviewed to explore methods which could be used in programme evaluations.Results We identified 15 735 unique records of which only seven met the inclusion criteria. All studies reported contact coverage. No study explicitly measured effective coverage, but it was possible to estimate this for one study. In six studies the numerator of coverage, service utilization, was estimated using routine clinical information, whereas one study used a national community survey. The methods for estimating the denominator, the population in need of services, were more varied and included national prevalence surveys case registers, and estimates from the literature.Conclusions Very few coverage estimates are available. Coverage could be estimated at low cost by combining routine programme data with population prevalence estimates from national surveys.

The Systematic Development and Pilot Randomized Evaluation of Counselling for Alcohol Problems, a Lay Counselor‐Delivered Psychological Treatment for Harmful Drinking in Primary Care in India: The PREMIUM Study

“…Among all mental disorders, globally, AUD have the widest treatment gap; the contact coverage of care for AUD is less than 20% in most countries (Kohn et al., 2004). Furthermore, as most patients who are in contact with services do not have their AUD recognized or receive evidence‐based treatments, the “effective” coverage gap is likely to be even larger (De Silva et al., 2014). …”

Saúde mental na atenção primária e Saúde Mental Global: perspectivas internacionais e cenário brasileiro

“…Although there are effective treatments for most mental disorders 18 , many patients have no access to them. The median global treatment gap is estimated to be 32.2% for schizophrenia and 56.3% for depression 19 . In low-and middle-income countries (LAMICs), up to three in four persons with mental disorders do not receive the treatments known to work.…”

Policy Actions To Achieve Integrated Community-Based Mental Health Services

“…The innovations were identified through system- atic reviews of the evidence on scaled-up innovations globally 13 and in low-and middle-income countries.…”

“…13 Thus, there is very little evidence to guide policy makers on the best way to integrate mental health into a general health care system and no overarching efforts to evaluate which type of integration is most cost-effective or suitable for particular contexts. Such studies, including research that estimates the returns on investment that could be expected from implementing mental health programs on a national scale, are urgently needed in all countries.…”