↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the peer-delivered Thinking Healthy Programme for perinatal depression in Pakistan and India: the SHARE study protocol for randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
370 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
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the peer-delivered Thinking Healthy Programme for perinatal depression in Pakistan and India: the SHARE study protocol for randomised controlled trials
Published in
Trials, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-1063-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siham Sikander, Anisha Lazarus, Omer Bangash, Daniela C. Fuhr, Benedict Weobong, Revathi N. Krishna, Ikhlaq Ahmad, Helen A. Weiss, LeShawndra Price, Atif Rahman, Vikram Patel

Abstract

Rates of perinatal depression (antenatal and postnatal depression) in South Asia are among the highest in the world. The delivery of effective psychological treatments for perinatal depression through existing health systems is a challenge due to a lack of human resources. This paper reports on a trial protocol that aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Thinking Healthy Programme delivered by peers (Thinking Healthy Programme Peer-delivered; THPP), for women with moderate to severe perinatal depression in rural and urban settings in Pakistan and India. THPP is evaluated with two randomised controlled trials: a cluster trial in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and an individually randomised trial in Goa, India. Trial participants are pregnant women who are registered with the lady health workers in the study area in Pakistan and pregnant women attending outpatient antenatal clinics in India. They will be screened using the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for depression symptoms and will be eligible if their PHQ-9 is equal to or greater than 10 (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). The sample size will be 560 and 280 women in Pakistan and India, respectively. Women in the intervention arm (THPP) will be offered ten individual and four group sessions (Pakistan) or 6-14 individual sessions (India) delivered by a peer (defined as a mother from the same community who is trained and supervised in delivering the intervention). Women in the control arm (enhanced usual care) will receive health care as usual, enhanced by providing the gynaecologist or primary-health facilities with adapted WHO mhGAP guidelines for depression treatment, and providing the woman with her diagnosis and information on how to seek help for herself. The primary outcomes are remission and severity of depression symptoms at the 6-month postnatal follow-up. Secondary outcomes include remission and severity of depression symptoms at the 3-month postnatal follow-up, functional disability, perceived social support, breastfeeding rates, infant height and weight, and costs of health care at the 3- and 6-month postnatal follow-ups. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat. The trials have the potential to strengthen the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based psychological treatment recommended by the World Health Organisation and delivered by peers for perinatal depression. The trials have the unique opportunity to overcome the shortage of human resources in global mental health and may advance our understanding about the use of peers who work in partnership with the existing health systems in low-resource settings. Pakistan Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111915 (9 April 2014) India Trial: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02104232 (1 April 2014).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 370 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 368 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 19%
Researcher 53 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 67 18%
Unknown 79 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 74 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 68 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 15%
Social Sciences 32 9%
Unspecified 15 4%
Other 37 10%
Unknown 90 24%

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 01 August 2021.
All research outputs
#6,525,401
of 20,150,223 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,448
of 5,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,793
of 393,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#221
of 501 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,150,223 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 5,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
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 393,382 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 501 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.