Recognizing the need for good quality, scientific and reliable information for strengthening mental health policies and programmes, the National Mental Health Survey (NMHS) of India was implemented by National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, in the year 2015–2016. To estimate the prevalence, socio-demographic correlates and treatment gap of mental morbidity in a representative population of India. NMHS was conducted across 12 Indian states where trained field investigators completed 34,802 interviews using tablet-assisted personal interviews. Eligible study subjects (18+ years) in households were selected by a multi-stage, stratified, random cluster sampling technique. Mental morbidity was assessed using MINI 6. Three-tier data monitoring system was adopted for quality assurance. Weighted and specific prevalence estimates were derived (current and lifetime) for different mental disorders. Mental morbidity was defined as those disorders as per the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision Diagnostic Criteria for Research (ICD-10 DCR). Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to examine risk for mental morbidity by different socio-demographic factors. Survey was approved by central and state-level institutional ethical committees. The weighted lifetime prevalence of ‘any mental morbidity’ was estimated at 13.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 13.61, 13.73) and current prevalence was 10.56% (95% CI = 10.51, 10.61). Mental and behavioural problems due to psychoactive substance use (F10–F19; 22.44%), mood disorders (F30–F39; 5.61%) and neurotic and stress-related disorders (F40–F48; 3.70%) were the most commonly prevalent mental morbidity in India. The overall prevalence was estimated to be higher among males, middle-aged individuals, in urban-metros, among less educated and in households with lower income. Treatment gap for overall mental morbidity was 84.5%. NMHS is the largest reported survey of mental morbidity in India. Survey estimated that nearly 150 million individuals suffer from one or the other mental morbidity in India. This information is to be used for planning, delivery and evaluating mental health programming in the country.
1 January 2015 in Journal of Natural Science, Biology and Medicine
Background: Cervical cancer is the most common cancer among Indian women of reproductive age. Unfortunately, despite the evidence of methods for prevention, most of the women remain unscreened. The reported barriers to screening include unawareness of risk factors, symptoms and prevention; stigma and misconceptions about gynecological diseases and lack of national cervical cancer screening guidelines and policies. This study attempts to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practices related to cervical cancer and its screening among women of reproductive age (15-45 years). Materials and Methods: A facility-based cross-sectional study was done on 400 females of reproductive age who presented to out-patient-department of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhopal. Structured questionnaire consisting 20 knowledge items and 7-items for attitude and history of pap smear for practices were administered by one of the investigators after informed consent. Data were entered and analyzed using Epi-Info version 7. Qualitative variables were summarized as counts and percentages while quantitative variables as mean and standard deviation. Predictors of better knowledge, attitude, and practices were identified by binary logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 442 women were approached for interview of which 400 responded of which two-third (65.5%) had heard of cervical cancer. At least one symptom and one risk factor were known to 35.25% and 39.75% participants. Only 34.5% participants had heard, and 9.5% actually underwent screening test, however, 76.25% of the participants expressed a favorable attitude for screening. Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that education age and income were independent predictors of better knowledge. Education level influences attitude toward screening and actual practice depends on age, income, and marital status. This study shows that despite the fact that women had suboptimal level of knowledge regarding cervical cancer, their attitude is favorable for screening. However, uptake is low in actual practice. Strategic communication targeting eligible women may increase the uptake of screening.
Background: About 14% of the global mental health burden is contributed by India. However, there exists a disparity in mental health patterns, utilization, and prioritization among various Indian states. The state of Madhya Pradesh is a low performer among Indian states, ranking lower than the national average on the Human Development Index, Hunger Index, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The state also performes poorly on other health-related indicators. Objectives of Study: To estimate the prevalence and patterns of mental illnesses in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India. Material and Methods: This study used the multistage, stratified, random cluster sampling technique, with selection probability proportionate to size at each stage. A total of 3240 individuals 18 years and older were interviewed. The mixed-method study that was employed had both quantitative and qualitative components. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview along with 10 other instruments were used. Results: The overall weighted prevalence for any mental illness was 13.9%, with 16.7% over the lifetime. The treatment gap for all of the mental health problems is very high (91%), along with high suicidal risk and substance use in the state. Conclusions: This study provides evidence of the huge burden of mental, behavioral, and substance use disorders as well as the treatment gap in Madhya Pradesh. This information is crucial for developing an effective prevention and control strategy. The high treatment gap in the state calls for coordinated efforts from all stakeholders, including policy makers, political leaders, health care professionals, and the society at large to give mental health care its due priority. These findings also highlight the need for multi-pronged interventions rooted in health policy directed at reducing the treatment gap in the short term and disease burden in the long run.
Pre-diagnosis attrition needs to be addressed urgently if we are to make progress in improving MDR-TB case detection and achieve universal access to MDR-TB care. We report the pre-diagnosis attrition, along with factors associated, and turnaround times related to the diagnostic pathway among patient with presumptive MDR-TB in Bhopal district, central India (2014). Study was conducted under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme setting. It was a retrospective cohort study involving record review of all registered TB cases in Bhopal district that met the presumptive MDR-TB criteria (eligible for DST) in 2014. In quarter 1, Line Probe Assay (LPA) was used if sample was smear/culture positive. Quarter 2 onwards, LPA and Cartridge-based Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (CbNAAT) was used for smear positive and smear negative samples respectively. Pre-diagnosis attrition was defined as failure to undergo DST among patients with presumptive MDR-TB (as defined by the programme). Of 770 patients eligible for DST, 311 underwent DST and 20 patients were diagnosed as having MDR-TB. Pre-diagnosis attrition was 60% (459/770). Among those with pre-diagnosis attrition, 91% (417/459) were not identified as ‘presumptive MDR-TB’ by the programme. TAT [median (IQR)] to undergo DST after eligibility was 4 (0, 10) days. Attrition was more than 40% across all subgroups. Age more than 64 years; those from a medical college; those eligible in quarter 1; patients with presumptive criteria ‘previously treated – recurrent TB’, ‘treatment after loss-to-follow-up’ and ‘previously treated-others’; and patients with extra-pulmonary TB were independent risk factors for not undergoing DST. High pre-diagnosis attrition was contributed by failure to identify and refer patients. Attrition reduced modestly with time and one factor that might have contributed to this was introduction of CbNAAT in quarter 2 of 2014. General health system strengthening which includes improvement in identification/referral and patient tracking with focus on those with higher risk for not undergoing DST is urgently required.
13 March 2020 in International Journal of Mental Health Systems
Background: Previous attempts of Mental Health Systems Assessment in India were restricted in scope and scale. Information on all aspects of mental health systems (leadership/governance, legislation, financing, service delivery, workforce, access to essential medicines, information systems, intersectoral activities, and monitoring and evaluation) was scarcely available. The National Mental Health Survey-Mental Health Systems Assessment (NMHS-MHSA), a unique endeavor, assessed the performance of mental health systems and services through health systems assessment framework. The present paper discusses the design and methodology adopted under NMHS-MHSA along with emphasizing its implication for India and other LMICs. Methods: NMHS-MHSA was undertaken in 12 Indian states by contextually adapting WHO-AIMS instrument. Data was collated from several secondary sources including interviews of key stakeholders. Utilizing the data a set of 15-quantitative, 5-morbidity and 10-qualitative indicators were developed to summarize the functional status of mental health systems in the surveyed states. This information was authenticated through state level stakeholder’s consultation and consensus building workshops following which a state mental health systems report card with indicators was developed. Conclusion: The process and robust method of data compilation enabled NMHS-MHSA to be a reliable and comprehensive method for assessing mental health systems at the state level. It’s envisaged that the assessment provides requisite impetus for strengthening mental health program and mental health systems in India. Being less resource intensive, low -and middle- income countries can adopt NMHS-MHSA tool and methodology to assess their mental health systems with contextual modifications.
5 April 2023 in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease (COVID-19) has caused more than 6 million deaths globally. Understanding predictors of mortality will help in prioritizing patient care and preventive approaches. This was a multicentric, unmatched, hospital-based case-control study conducted in nine teaching hospitals in India. Cases were microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 patients who died in the hospital during the period of study and controls were microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 patients who were discharged from the same hospital after recovery. Cases were recruited sequentially from March 2020 until December–March 2021. All information regarding cases and controls was extracted retrospectively from the medical records of patients by trained physicians. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression was done to assess the association between various predictor variables and deaths due to COVID-19. A total of 2,431 patients (1,137 cases and 1,294 controls) were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 52.8 years (SD: 16.5 years), and 32.1% were females. Breathlessness was the most common symptom at the time of admission (53.2%). Increasing age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 46–59 years, 3.4 [95% CI: 1.5–7.7]; 60–74 years, 4.1 [95% CI: 1.7–9.5]; and ≥ 75 years, 11.0 [95% CI: 4.0–30.6]); preexisting diabetes mellitus (aOR: 1.9 [95% CI: 1.2–2.9]); malignancy (aOR: 3.1 [95% CI: 1.3–7.8]); pulmonary tuberculosis (aOR: 3.3 [95% CI: 1.2–8.8]); breathlessness at the time of admission (aOR: 2.2 [95% CI: 1.4–3.5]); high quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at the time of admission (aOR: 5.6 [95% CI: 2.7–11.4]); and oxygen saturation < 94% at the time of admission (aOR: 2.5 [95% CI: 1.6–3.9]) were associated with mortality due to COVID-19. These results can be used to prioritize patients who are at increased risk of death and to rationalize therapy to reduce mortality due to COVID-19.