↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of outcomes for psychosis and epilepsy treatment delivered by primary health care workers in Nepal: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Mental Health Systems, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Evaluation of outcomes for psychosis and epilepsy treatment delivered by primary health care workers in Nepal: a cohort study
Published in
International Journal of Mental Health Systems, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13033-017-0177-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. A. Kohrt, F. Baingana, L. Aldridge, M. J. D. Jordans, N. P. Luitel

Abstract

Most evaluations of task-shifting have focused on common mental disorders. Much less work has been done on severe mental neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders, such as chronic psychosis and epilepsy. Given the high burden associated with severe MNS and the lack of mental health professionals in low and middle income countries, evaluations on the impact of task-shifting for these disorders are important. In a rural district of Nepal, a community mental health program, based on World Health Organization's Mental Health Gap Action Programme guidelines, was evaluated using a cohort study design. People with epilepsy and psychotic disorders were interviewed at treatment initiation and at 12-month follow-up. We also compared a group that was offered a comprehensive package of care (medication combined with psychosocial interventions, such as counselling and peer support groups) to a group that received medication only. One-hundred nineteen persons were enrolled in the epilepsy cohort (EC) and 85 in the psychosis cohort (PC). The patients were enrolled in either the comprehensive package (n = 157) or medication only (n = 47). There was significant improvement (P < 0.0001) in psychosis symptoms (PC: Z = 6.78, r = 0.80) and depressive symptoms (EC: Z = 7.43, r = 0.73; PC: Z = 6.02, r = 0.70), seizures (EC: Z = 6.78), functional disability (EC: Z = 6.38, r = 0.67; PC: Z = 4.60, r = 0.57), family and caregiver burden (EC: Z = 8.09, r = 0.85; PC: Z = 6.81, r = 0.84), and social behaviour (PC: Z = 5.94, r = 0.84). There was greater risk reduction for recent seizures among people with epilepsy in the comprehensive treatment package vs. medication only (risk ratio = 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.95; P = 0.03); no other significant differences were observed between treatment arms. A community mental health program in Nepal, implemented by non-specialists, resulted in moderate to large effects among people with epilepsy or psychosis. A comprehensive package of care, including counselling and patient support groups, appears to offer added clinical benefits for patients with epilepsy. For people with psychosis, the basic package of care (i.e., psychotropic medications) performed similar to the comprehensive package, suggesting a less resource-intensive package may offer comparable results.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 29 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 16%
Social Sciences 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 11%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 32 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#8,682,900
of 15,906,528 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#362
of 564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,108
of 411,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Mental Health Systems
#23
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,906,528 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 411,766 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.