Cited by 4Health Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health servicesMental Health Treatment and Access

Implementation of child mental health service improvement plans in four low- and middle-income countries: stakeholders’ perspectives

Open access
Eruyar, Seyda, Haffejee, Sadiyya, Anderson, ES, Vostanis, Panos·2025·Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract

Children in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have high levels of unmet mental health needs, especially in disadvantaged communities. To address this gap, we developed a child mental health service improvement programme. This was co-facilitated using interprofessional principles and values in four countries, South Africa, Kenya, Turkey and Brazil. Eighteen stakeholders from different professions were interviewed after six months on their perspectives on enabling factors and challenges they faced in implementing service plans. Participants valued the holistic case management approach and scaled service model that underpinned the service plans. Emerging themes on participants' priorities related to service user participation, integrated care, and different levels of capacity-building. We propose that an integrated care model in LMIC contexts can maximize available resources, engage families and mobilize communities. Implementation requires concurrent actions at micro-, meso- and macro-level.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13561820.2021.1982881

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Eruyar, S., Haffejee, S., Anderson, E., & Vostanis, P.
Affiliations
  • Necmettin Erbakan University
  • University of Johannesburg (ZA)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Vostanis, Panos
Venue
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Published
2021-10-17
Volume
39
Issue
6
Pages
982-989
ISSN
  • 1356-1820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-9567
OpenAlex
W3206968754
Cited by
4
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Interprofessional Care (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • the Grand Challenges Research Fund
  • Grand Challenges Research Fund, Globall Impact Acceleration Rapid Response
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
child mental health services, service improvement plan, implementation barriers and facilitators, stakeholder perspectives, interprofessional collaboration, integrated care, service user involvement, capacity building, family involvement, community mobilization, low- and middle-income countries, unmet mental health needs
MeSH terms
Stakeholder Participation, Brazil, Child, Child Health Services, Developing Countries, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Kenya, Mental Health Services, South Africa, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Capacity Building, Quality Improvement

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