Cited by 258Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 147 of the 147 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Innovative Models in Mental Health Delivery Systems: Task Sharing Care with Non-specialist Providers to Close the Mental Health Treatment Gap

Abstract

Purpose of review Most people do not have access to adequate mental health care, and lack of skilled human resources is a major factor. We provide a narrative review of approaches to implementing task sharing-engaging non-specialist providers-to deliver mental health care.Recent findings There is strong evidence both for the effectiveness of task sharing as a means of delivering care for a range of conditions across settings and for the effectiveness of non-specialist providers and health workers in delivering elements of culturally adapted psychosocial and psychological interventions for common and severe mental disorders. Key approaches to facilitate task sharing of care include balanced care, collaborative care, sustained training and supervision, use of trans-diagnostic interventions based on a dimensional approach to wellness and illness, and the use of emerging digital technologies. Non-specialist providers and health workers are well positioned to deliver evidence-based interventions for mental disorders, and a variety of delivery approaches can support, facilitate, and sustain this innovation. These approaches should be used, and evaluated, to increase access to mental health services.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11920-019-1028-x

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 147 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Saxena S. Disparity between burden and budget for mental health. Lancet Public Health [Internet]. 2018 Nov [cited 2018 Dec 29]; Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S246826671830238X
  2. Diez-Canseco F, Toyama M, Ipince A, Perez-Leon S, Cavero V, Araya R, et al. Integration of a technology-based mental health screening program into routine practices of primary health care services in Peru (the Allillanchu Project): development and implementation. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e100. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 257

Metadata

Authors
Raviola, G., Naslund, J. A., Smith, S. L., & Patel, V.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Raviola, Giuseppe
Venue
Current Psychiatry Reports
Published
2019-04-30
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
44-44
ISSN
  • 1523-3812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-1645
OpenAlex
W2942884758
Cited by
258
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Psychiatry Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
task sharing, non-specialist providers, mental health treatment gap, access to mental health care, mental health workforce shortage, collaborative care, training and supervision, digital mental health tools, severe mental illness
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Community Health Workers, Health Personnel, Humans, Mental Health, Mental Health Services, Patient Care Team, Psychotherapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review