Mental health research
The Global Forum for Health Research and the "World Health Organization (WHO) Mental Health: Evidence and Research" carried out a study to provide an account of the current status of mental health research in 114 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by mapping:
- researchers and other stakeholders (decision-makers, university administrators and association offers) working in the field of mental health research;
- current research agendas;
- the process of setting priorities for mental health research;
- the dissemination of such research and its impact on mental health policy and practice.
The management of mental health research needs to be strengthened
The study revealed the need to review and strengthen the management of mental health research through:
- Governments and other institutions considering mental health crucial to the overall health of their populations and an important bearing on national development.
- Integrating mental health research within health research systems to enhance synergies and avoid inefficiencies, gaps and duplications.
- Establishing a leading body to identify and monitor gaps in national and regional mental health research, formulate priorities, advocate for funds, assess research capacity, establish networks, disseminate information and provide technical and financial support.
- Formulating and implementing mental health research priorities through a transparent, participatory and scientific process. The Combined Approach Matrix (CAM) of the Global Forum is an effective tool for priority setting in this regard (order here).
- Increasing national funding for mental health research, bringing it into line, as far as possible, with the country's burden of mental disorders. In addition, leading research donors must include a specific mental health component in their budgetary allocations.
- Investing in mental health research capacity strengthening, particularly through research trainings and incentives for mental health professionals.
- Developing research networks and public-private partnerships. In particular, m ore LMIC country researchers and other stakeholders should be connected to established research networks.
- Mainstreaming cross-cutting issues, such as socioeconomic status and gender, in all strategies and research designs, as key variables.
- Connecting with information networks in health research to ensure the sharing and utilization of mental health information by researchers, policy-makers and the general population. There is a need for organizations to bridge the gap between policy and research by sensitizing researchers about the usefulness of involving other stakeholders in their research and sensitizing stakeholders about the importance of good mental health research.
Mental health research in LMICs is poorly funded and developed
Of the 114 LMICs, 57% were found to contribute fewer than five articles to the international mental health indexed literature during a 10-year period (1993-2003). In addition, very few articles could be identified from non-indexed sources in almost 70% of the countries , suggesting a paucity of mental health research (and researchers) in many LMICs.
Some countries, on the other hand, such as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, the Republic of Korea and South Africa contributed significantly to international mental health publications – a finding that attests to notable variations in mental health research production within, as well as across, regions.
Top priorities for mental health research
The study showed broad agreement among mental health researchers and other stakeholders, and across regions, regarding priorities for mental health research in LMICs:
Criteria for prioritizing research
The most important criteria for prioritizing research were
- burden of disease
- social justice
- availability of funds,
although researchers and other stakeholders differed markedly regarding the importance of personal interest of researchers as a criterion for prioritizing research:
Challenges researchers face
Most of the in-depth interview participants reported that the mental health research output of their countries was low, lending support to the findings of the literature audit. Many reasons were cited for this. Interviewees reported that clinicians and academics worked in institutions most of which lacked a research culture. As a result, they faced many demands in a context characterized by poor funding, a lack of trained personnel, little infrastructural support and a paucity of research networks. This was similar to the results from the large survey conducted among the researchers group:
 |
Few policies are based on local research
The study yielded examples of research that had impacted on policy and practice. Yet, participants reported that few policies, interventions or programmes are based on information derived from mental health research conducted in their country, mainly due to a gap in communication between researchers and decision-makers. Lack of a critical mass of trained and informed actors on both sides and lack of baseline studies to support the development of policies were seen as factors contributing to this communication gap.
First systematic study of mental health research in LMICs
The scale of the study makes it the first systematic attempt to collect relevant information in this area, providing a valuable confirmation of what was expected but has never been systematically documented previously.
Researchers, decision-makers, university administrators and association officers working in the area of mental health were enumerated through an extensive, standardized search of indexed and non-indexed literature. Over 10 000 relevant articles were identified, along with 4633 mental health researchers and 3829 other stakeholders. Surveys conducted with each of the four groups yielded valuable insights into research production, priorities and funding. In-depth interviews with key informants elicited views on the interface between policy and research.
Last updated
1 September, 2008
