Cited by 144Mental Health Treatment and AccessHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 167 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Applying systems thinking to task shifting for mental health using lay providers: a review of the evidence

Open access
Javadi, D., Feldhaus, I., Mancuso, A., Ghaffar, A.·2017·Global Mental Health

Abstract

Objective.: This paper seeks to review the available evidence to determine whether a systems approach is employed in the implementation and evaluation of task shifting for mental health using lay providers in low- and middle-income countries, and to highlight system-wide effects of task-shifting strategies in order to better inform efforts to strength community mental health systems. Methods.: Pubmed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Articles were screened by two independent reviewers with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Two stages of screens were done to ensure sensitivity. Studies were analysed using the World Health Organization's building blocks framework with the addition of a community building block, and systems thinking characteristics to determine the extent to which system-wide effects had been considered. Results.: Thirty studies were included. Almost all studies displayed positive findings on mental health using task shifting. One study showed no effect. No studies explicitly employed systems thinking tools, but some demonstrated systems thinking characteristics, such as exploring various stakeholder perspectives, capturing unintended consequences, and looking across sectors for system-wide impact. Twenty-five of the 30 studies captured elements other than the most directly relevant building blocks of service delivery and health workforce. Conclusions.: There is a lack of systematic approaches to exploring complexity in the evaluation of task-shifting interventions. Systems thinking tools should support evidence-informed decision making for a more complete understanding of community-based systems strengthening interventions for mental health.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review of 30 studies in LMICs found task shifting for mental health using lay providers was generally feasible and effective, but evaluations rarely applied systems thinking. No included study explicitly used systems thinking tools, though some captured system-wide elements across WHO health system building blocks.

Key findings

  • Thirty studies were included; almost all showed positive mental health findings and one showed no effect. Task shifting was generally feasible and acceptable, but perceptions of quality of care provided by lay providers remained uncertain.
  • Twenty-five of 30 studies (83%) mentioned at least one WHO building block beyond service delivery and health workforce; all 30 included the added community/people building block. Among the 25, 16 (80%) considered information/technology, 11 (55%) medicines/medical devices, 15 (70%) financing, and 10 (50%) leadership/governance.
  • No studies explicitly employed systems thinking tools or system dynamics modelling, but six studies took a more comprehensive approach to capturing system implications, such as stakeholder perspectives, feedback, and intersectoral effects.
  • Barriers included stigma, poor documentation/follow-up, medicine access and prescribing-training gaps, demand-side financial/geographic barriers, heavy workloads, weak collaboration with traditional/spiritual healers, and provider–decision-maker disconnect. Facilitators included lay providers’ community relatability, specialist support, technology/telemedicine supervision, integrated livelihood/social supports, and existing networks.

Methods

  • Systematic review: PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched 5 September–30 October 2016. From 1357 records, 249 duplicates were removed, 1108 titles/abstracts were screened, 147 met first-stage criteria, and 30 papers were included. Two independent reviewers screened, with a blinded third reviewer resolving discrepancies; inclusion required LMIC setting, mental health focus, task shifting to lay providers with fewer than 3 years of training, research article, English, and not a pilot.
  • Data extraction and analysis used CASP tools for quality and coded studies against the six WHO building blocks plus a seventh community/people block, along with systems thinking characteristics such as stakeholder perspectives, network/process mapping, feedback mechanisms, and system dynamics. No meta-analysis was done because interventions were diverse, conducted at multiple scales, and included qualitative evaluations.

Limitations

  • Stated: the wide variety of mental health interventions, populations, and outcome measures may make broader conclusions difficult to apply to unique mental health conditions; some studies may have considered system-wide effects but not reported them in final manuscripts.
  • Stated/evident: the search was limited to January 1996–September 2016, English peer-reviewed research articles, and excluded pilot studies; no meta-analysis was performed.
  • Evident: because no included study explicitly used systems thinking tools, conclusions about system-wide effects rely on implicit mentions; the review also highlighted interventions primarily in the health sector, with few cross-sector task-shifting examples.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/gmh.2017.15

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 167 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 76 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 30
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
69 of 69
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Effective integration of mental health into primary care requires strengthened primary care systems.

    “However, effective integration requires strengthened primary care systems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Systems thinking contributes to documenting the system-wide impact of a given intervention, as well as enhancing the ability to predict both intended and unintended consequences of the intervention, critical in designing successful large-scale reform.

    “Systems thinking contributes to documenting the system-wide impact of a given intervention, as well as enhancing the ability to predict both intended and unintended consequences of the intervention, critical in designing successful large-scale reform.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    An important element of systems thinking is understanding roles, characteristics, and interactions of the players involved.

    “An important element of systems thinking is understanding roles, characteristics, and interactions of the players involved.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    More examples of intersectoral collaboration exist, especially in education and social services.

    “More examples of such collaboration exist, especially in education and social services.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Establishing networks and intersectoral linkages is not easy.

    “Establishing networks and intersectoral linkages is not easy.”
5 of 5

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Randomized-trial arm sizes exceed the reported total

    Major

    The reported intervention and control groups sum to 347 participants, not the stated total of 247.

    Reported 247 · recomputed 347

  • Information and technology percentage is incorrect

    Minor

    Sixteen of 25 studies is 64%, not 80%.

    Reported 80 · recomputed 64

  • Three cohort or pre/post papers are claimed, but five are listed

    Minor

    The sentence describes three papers while naming five distinct papers in its supporting citations.

  • Financing percentage is incorrect

    Minor

    Using the stated denominator of 25 studies, 15 studies represent 60%, not 70%.

    Reported 70 · recomputed 60

  • Medicines and medical devices percentage is incorrect

    Minor

    Using the stated denominator of 25 studies, 11 studies represent 44%, not 55%.

    Reported 55 · recomputed 44

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 74 references

5 of the 74 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. 2007b, Joint WHO/OGAC Technical Consultation on Task Shifting: Key Elements of a Regulatory Framework in Support of In-country Implementation of Task Shifting
  2. 2007, Systems Support for Task-Shifting to Community Health Workers
  3. 2013, Joint Commitment to Harmonized Partners Action for Community Health Workers and Frontline Health Workers: Moving from Fragmentation to Synergy Toward Universal Health Coverage
  4. 1997, International Conference on Intersectoral Action for Health
  5. 2008, mhGAP Mental Health Gap Action Programme: Scaling Up Care for Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders
  6. 2008, Integrating mental health into primary care: a global perspective
  7. Levin, 2015, Disease Control Priorities 3: Mental, Neurological, and Substance Use Disorders, 1
  8. 2010, Monitoring the Building Blocks of the Health System
  9. 2009, Systems Thinking for Health Systems Strengthening
  10. 2009, Improving Health Systems and Services for Mental Health
  11. 2007a, Everybody's Business: Strengthening Health Systems to Improve Health Outcomes
  12. 2016, Critical Appraisal Skills Program: Making Sense of Evidence
  13. 2006, World Health Report 2006: Working Together for Health

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–135 of 135

Metadata

Authors
Javadi, D., Feldhaus, I., Mancuso, A., & Ghaffar, A.
Affiliations
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Javadi, D.
Venue
Global Mental Health
Published
2017
Volume
4
Pages
e14-e14
ISSN
2054-4251 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2739628147
Cited by
144
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cambridge Prisms Global Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • University of Cambridge
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 shifting, systems thinking, lay providers, community mental health system, mental health service delivery, low- and middle-income countries, systems strengthening, healthcare workers, stakeholder perspectives, unintended consequences, community building

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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