The PRIDE programme aims to establish a suite of transdiagnostic psychological interventions organised around a stepped care system in Indian secondary schools. This paper describes the development of a low-intensity, first-line component of the PRIDE model. Contextual and global evidence informed an intervention 'blueprint' with problem solving as the primary practice element. Successive iterations were tested and modified across two pilot cohort studies (N = 45; N = 39). Participants were aged 13-20 years and presenting with elevated mental health symptoms in New Delhi schools. The first iteration of the intervention, based on a guided self-help modality, showed promising outcomes and user satisfaction when delivered by psychologists. However, delivery was not feasible within the intended 6-week schedule, and participants struggled to use materials outside 'guidance' sessions. In Pilot 2, a modified counsellor-led problem-solving intervention was implemented by less experienced counsellors over a 3-4 week schedule. Outcomes were maintained, with indications of enhanced feasibility and acceptability. High demand was observed across both pilots, leading to more stringent eligibility criteria and a modified sensitisation plan. Findings have shaped a first-line intervention for common adolescent mental health problems in low-resource settings. A forthcoming randomised controlled trial will test its effectiveness.

Background: Psychological interventions such as behavioral activation (BA) that focus on overt behaviors rather than complex cognitive skills may be developmentally well-suited to address youth mental health problems. The current systematic review synthesized evidence on the characteristics, effectiveness and acceptability of behavioral activation (BA) to examine its role as a potential ‘active ingredient’ for alleviating depression and anxiety among young people aged 14 to 24 years. Methods: Evidence across the following sources were synthesized: (i) randomized control trials (RCT) evaluating interventions where BA has been used as a standalone intervention or as part of a multicomponent intervention, (ii) qualitative studies examining the acceptability of BA as an intervention or as a coping strategy among young people with lived experiences. Consultations with a youth advisory group (YAG) from India were used to draw inferences from existing evidence and identify future research priorities. Results: As part of the review, 23 RCTs were identified; three studies examined BA as a standalone intervention, and the remaining studies examined multicomponent intervention where BA was a constituent element. The intervention protocols varied in composition, with the number of intervention elements ranging between 5 to 18. There was promising but limited evidence in standalone interventions for thse effectiveness of BA for depression. The impact of BA in multicomponent interventions was difficult to evaluate in the absence of focal assessment of activation outcomes. Evidence from 37 additional qualitative studies of youth lived experience literature, corroborated by the YAG inputs, indicated that young people preferred using behavioral strategies similar to BA to cope with depression in their own life. Themes indicated that the activities that are important to an individual and their socio-contextual factors need to be considered in the planning and implementing BA intervention. Evidence for the use of BA in anxiety was limited across data sources. Conclusions: Overall, there was preliminary empirical evidence for the effectiveness and acceptability of BA for youth depression. Further research is needed to examine the components and mechanisms that contribute to its effectiveness as an active intervention ingredient for depression and anxiety.

Purpose Mental health problems and suicide are the leading cause of mortality in young people globally. India is home to the largest number of adolescents in the world. This study was undertaken to assess the policy environment for addressing adolescent mental health in India. Methods We conducted a review of 6 policies and programs and 11 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. The findings were analyzed using the policy triangle analysis framework (i.e., context, content, actors and process). Results There is no conformity of the age ranges addressed by these documents nor are vulnerable groups explicitly recognized. Stress, anxiety and depression were commonly identified as mental health concerns and diverse platforms such as community, family, school, digital and health facility were recommended to deliver preventive and treatment interventions. Some interventions specifically targeted some social determinants (like safe and supportive schools) but many others (like social norms) were not addressed. Preventive interventions were recommended for delivery through peers and other non-specialist providers while treatment interventions were recommended for delivery in healthcare facilities by specialist health professionals. There was very little engagement of young people in the development of these policies or in their implementation, except for peer educators mentioned in one policy. Stakeholders identified several major challenges in implementing these policies, notably the lack of inter-sectoral coordination and fragmentation of governance; budgetary constraints; and scanty human resources. Conclusions Although there are now several policy instruments testifying to a comprehensive approach on adolescent mental health, there are gaps in the extent of engagement of young people and how these will be operationalized that may limit their impact on addressing the burden of mental health problems in young people in India.

Background: Psychosocial interventions for adolescent mental health problems are effective, but evidence on their longer-term outcomes is scarce, especially in low-resource settings. We report on the 12-month sustained effectiveness and costs of scaling up a lay counselor–delivered, transdiagnostic problem-solving intervention for common adolescent mental health problems in low-income schools in New Delhi, India.Methods and findings: Participants in the original trial were 250 school-going adolescents (mean [M] age = 15.61 years, standard deviation [SD] = 1.68), including 174 (69.6%) who identified as male. Participants were recruited from 6 government schools over a period of 4 months (August 20 to December 14, 2018) and were selected on the basis of elevated mental health symptoms and distress/functional impairment. A 2-arm, randomized controlled trial design was used to examine the effectiveness of a lay counselor–delivered, problem-solving intervention (4 to 5 sessions over 3 weeks) with supporting printed booklets (intervention arm) in comparison with problem solving delivered via printed booklets alone (control arm), at the original endpoints of 6 and 12 weeks. The protocol was modified, as per the recommendation of the Trial Steering Committee, to include a post hoc extension of the follow-up period to 12 months. Primary outcomes were adolescent-reported psychosocial problems (Youth Top Problems [YTP]) and mental health symptoms (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [SDQ] Total Difficulties scale). Other self-reported outcomes included SDQ subscales, perceived stress, well-being, and remission. The sustained effects of the intervention were estimated at the 12-month endpoint and over 12 months (the latter assumed a constant effect across 3 follow-up points) using a linear mixed model for repeated measures and involving complete case analysis. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of missing data using multiple imputations. Costs were estimated for delivering the intervention during the trial and from modeling a scale-up scenario, using a retrospective ingredients approach. Out of the 250 original trial participants, 176 (70.4%) adolescents participated in the 12-month follow-up assessment. One adverse event was identified during follow-up and deemed unrelated to the intervention. Evidence was found for intervention effects on both SDQ Total Difficulties and YTP at 12 months (YTP: adjusted mean difference [AMD] = −0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.47, −0.03,p= 0.04; SDQ Total Difficulties: AMD = −1.73, 95% CI = −3.47, 0.02,p= 0.05), with stronger effects over 12 months (YTP: AMD = −0.98, 95% CI = −1.51, −0.45,p< 0.001; SDQ Total Difficulties: AMD = −1.23, 95% CI = −2.37, −0.09;p= 0.03). There was also evidence for intervention effects on internalizing symptoms, impairment, perceived stress, and well-being over 12 months. The intervention effect was stable for most outcomes on sensitivity analyses adjusting for missing data; however, for SDQ Total Difficulties and impairment, the effect was slightly attenuated. The per-student cost of delivering the intervention during the trial was $3 United States dollars (USD; or $158 USD per case) and for scaling up the intervention in the modeled scenario was $4 USD (or $23 USD per case). The scaling up cost accounted for 0.4% of the per-student school budget in New Delhi. The main limitations of the study’s methodology were the lack of sample size calculations powered for 12-month follow-up and the absence of cost-effectiveness analyses using the primary outcomes.Conclusions: In this study, we observed that a lay counselor–delivered, brief transdiagnostic problem-solving intervention had sustained effects on psychosocial problems and mental health symptoms over the 12-month follow-up period. Scaling up this resource-efficient intervention is an affordable policy goal for improving adolescents’ access to mental health care in low-resource settings. The findings need to be interpreted with caution, as this study was a post hoc extension, and thus, the sample size calculations did not take into account the relatively high attrition rate observed during the long-term follow-up.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT03630471.

Background: Conduct, anxiety, and depressive disorders account for over 75% of the adolescent mental health burden globally. The current protocol will test a low-intensity problem-solving intervention for school-going adolescents with common mental health problems in India. The protocol also tests the effects of a classroom-based sensitization intervention on the demand for counselling services in an embedded recruitment trial. Methods/design: We will conduct a two-arm, individually randomized controlled trial in six Government-run secondary schools in New Delhi. The targeted sample is 240 adolescents in grades 9–12 with persistent, elevated mental health symptoms and associated distress/impairment. Participants will receive either a brief problem-solving intervention delivered over 3 weeks by lay counsellors (intervention) or enhanced usual care comprised of problem-solving booklets (control). Self-reported adolescent mental health symptoms and idiographic problems will be assessed at 6 weeks (co-primary outcomes) and again at 12 weeks post-randomization. In addition, adolescent-reported distress/impairment, perceived stress, mental wellbeing, and clinical remission, as well as parent-reported adolescent mental health symptoms and impact scores, will be assessed at 6 and 12 weeks post-randomization. We will also complete a parallel process evaluation, including estimations of the costs of delivering the interventions. An embedded recruitment trial will apply a stepped-wedge, cluster (class)-randomized controlled design in 70 classes across the six schools. This will evaluate the added effect of a classroom-based sensitization intervention over and above school-level sensitization activities on the primary outcome of referral rate into the host trial. Other outcomes will be the proportion of referrals eligible to participate in the host trial, proportion of self-generated referrals, and severity and pattern of symptoms among referred adolescents in each condition. Power calculations were undertaken separately for each trial. A detailed statistical analysis plan will be developed separately for each trial prior to unblinding. Discussion: Both trials were initiated on 20 August 2018. A single research protocol for both trials offers a resource-efficient methodology for testing the effectiveness of linked procedures to enhance uptake and outcomes of a school-based psychological intervention for common adolescent mental health problems. Trial registration: Both trials are registered prospectively with the National Institute of Health registry (www.clinicaltrials.gov), registration numbers NCT03633916 and NCT03630471, registered on 16th August, 2018 and 14th August, 2018 respectively).