Akmal Alikhan Aliev, Hana Tomaskova, Petr Winkler, Yongjie Yon, Anna Kagstrom, Zoe Guerrero, Ledia Lazeri, Marge Reinap, Cassie Redlich, Ana Maria Tijerino Inestroza, Jason Maurer
{"title":"Methods and tools to assess implementation of mental health policies and plans: A systematic review.","authors":"Akmal Alikhan Aliev, Hana Tomaskova, Petr Winkler, Yongjie Yon, Anna Kagstrom, Zoe Guerrero, Ledia Lazeri, Marge Reinap, Cassie Redlich, Ana Maria Tijerino Inestroza, Jason Maurer","doi":"10.1017/gmh.2023.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mental health policies and plans (MHPPs) are important policy instruments and powerful tools to facilitate development of mental health systems and services across the world. We aimed to map and analyse methods and tools used to assess the extent, process and impact of implementing MHPPs. We systematically searched peer-reviewed and grey literature across seven scientific databases. We extracted and analysed the data on a) the characteristics of included studies (e.g., policy areas, region of origin, income setting) and b) the methodology and evaluation tools applied to assess the extent and process of implementation. We included 48 studies in the analyses. Twenty-six of these studies employed only qualitative methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, desk review, stakeholder consultations); 12 studies used quantitative methods (e.g., trend analysis, survey) and 10 used mixed-methods approaches. Generally, methods and tools used for assessment were described poorly with less than half of the studies providing partial or full details about them. Only three studies provided assessment of full policies. There is a lack of rigorous research to assess implementation MHPPs. Assessments of the implementation of entire MHPPs are almost non-existent. Strategies to assess the implementation of MHPPs should be an integral part of MHPPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48579,"journal":{"name":"Global Mental Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ac/55/S2054425123000031a.PMC10579679.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2023.3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Mental health policies and plans (MHPPs) are important policy instruments and powerful tools to facilitate development of mental health systems and services across the world. We aimed to map and analyse methods and tools used to assess the extent, process and impact of implementing MHPPs. We systematically searched peer-reviewed and grey literature across seven scientific databases. We extracted and analysed the data on a) the characteristics of included studies (e.g., policy areas, region of origin, income setting) and b) the methodology and evaluation tools applied to assess the extent and process of implementation. We included 48 studies in the analyses. Twenty-six of these studies employed only qualitative methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, desk review, stakeholder consultations); 12 studies used quantitative methods (e.g., trend analysis, survey) and 10 used mixed-methods approaches. Generally, methods and tools used for assessment were described poorly with less than half of the studies providing partial or full details about them. Only three studies provided assessment of full policies. There is a lack of rigorous research to assess implementation MHPPs. Assessments of the implementation of entire MHPPs are almost non-existent. Strategies to assess the implementation of MHPPs should be an integral part of MHPPs.
期刊介绍:
lobal Mental Health (GMH) is an Open Access journal that publishes papers that have a broad application of ‘the global point of view’ of mental health issues. The field of ‘global mental health’ is still emerging, reflecting a movement of advocacy and associated research driven by an agenda to remedy longstanding treatment gaps and disparities in care, access, and capacity. But these efforts and goals are also driving a potential reframing of knowledge in powerful ways, and positioning a new disciplinary approach to mental health. GMH seeks to cultivate and grow this emerging distinct discipline of ‘global mental health’, and the new knowledge and paradigms that should come from it.