bioRxiv ScienceSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/763045

Review of layperson screening tools and model for a holistic mental health screener in lower and middle income countries

Abstract

BackgroundThe needs of people diagnosed with Mental Neurological and Substance-Use (MNS) conditions are complex including interactions physical, social, medical and environmental factors. Treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach including health and social services at different levels of care. However, due to inadequate assessment, services and scarcity of human resource for mental health, treatment of persons diagnosed with MNS conditions in many LMICs is mainly facility-based pharmacotherapy with minimal non-pharmacology treatments and social support services. In low resource settings, gaps in human resource capacity may be met using layperson health workers. A layperson health working is one without formal mental health training and may be equivalent to community health worker (CHW) or less cadre in primary health care system.\n\nObjectivesThis study reviewed layperson mental health screening tools for use in supporting mental health in developing countries, including the content and psychometric properties of the tools. Based on this review this study proposes recommendations for the design and effective use of layperson mental health screening tools based on the Five Pillars of global mental health.\n\nMethodsA systematic review was used to identify and examine the use of mental health screening tools among laypersons supporting community-based mental health programs. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL and PsychInfo databases were reviewed using a comprehensive list of keywords and MESH terms that included mental health, screening tools, lay-person, lower and middle income countries. Articles were included if they describe mental health screening tools used by laypersons for screening, delivery or monitoring of MNS conditions in community-based program in LMICs. Diagnostic tools were not included in this study. Trained research interviewers or research assistants were not considered as lay health workers for this study.\n\nResultsThere were eleven studies retained after 633 were screened. Twelve tools were identified covering specific disorders (E.g. alcohol and substance use, subcortical dementia associated with HIV/AIDS, PTSD) or common mental disorders (mainly depression and anxiety). These tools have been tested in LMICs including South Africa, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Malaysia, Pakistan, India, Ethiopia and Brazil. The included studies show that simple screening tools can enhance the value of laypersons and better support their roles in providing community-based mental health support. However, most of the layperson MH screening tools used in LMICs do not provide comprehensive information that can inform integrated comprehensive treatment planning and understanding of the broader mental health needs of the community.\n\nConclusionDeveloping a layperson screening tools is vital for integrated community-based mental health intervention. This study proposed a holistic framework which considers the relationship between individuals physical, mental and spiritual aspect of mental health, interpersonal as well as broader contextual determinants (community, policy and different level of the health system) that can be consulted for developing or selecting a layperson mental health screening instrument. More research are needed to evaluate the practical application of this framework.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Aderibigbe, O. O., Perlman, C. M.. 2019-09-09. Review of layperson screening tools and model for a holistic mental health screener in lower and middle income countries. https://doi.org/10.1101/763045

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education

Plagiarism in Brazil: A perspective of 25,000 PhD holders across the sciences

When it comes to ownership of ideas in science, Robert K. Merton (1957) observed in Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science that "what is true of physics, chemistry, astronomy, medicine and mathematics is true also of all the other scientific disciplines, not excluding the social and psychological sciences". However, consensus over related issues, such as what constitutes plagiarism in these fields cannot be taken for granted. We conducted a comprehensive study on plagiarism views among PhD holders registered in the database of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). We collected 25,157 valid responses encompassing views and attitudes toward plagiarism from a probability sample of PhD holders across the fields, including biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and engineers as well as linguists, philosophers and anthropologists. The results suggest that core principles about plagiarism are shared among this multidisciplinary community and that they corroborate Mertons observations. Before this study, we could only speculate that this is the case. With these data from a probability sample of Brazilian academia (PhD holders), this study offers insight into the way plagiarism is perceived across the sciences, including the literature and arts, and sheds light on the problem in the context of international collaborative research networks. The data focus on a young research system in Latin America, but, given the cultural similarities that bind most Latin-American nations, these results may be relevant to other PhD populations in the region and should provide a comparison with studies from other emerging, non-Anglophone regions.

scientific communication and education

Turn of Events: Academic events as a platform for preregistration

Prereg posters are conference posters that present planned scientific projects. We provide preliminary evidence for their value in receiving constructive feedback, promoting open science, and supporting early career researchers.View Full Text

scientific communication and education