Cited by 291Mental Health Treatment and AccessPsychiatric care and mental health servicesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Lay health worker led intervention for depressive and anxiety disorders in India: impact on clinical and disability outcomes over 12 months

Open access
Patel, Vikram, Weiss, Helen A., Chowdhary, Neerja, Naik, Smita, Pednekar, Sulochana, Chatterjee, Sudipto, Bhat, Bhargav, Araya, Ricardo +4 more·2011·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: Depressive and anxiety disorders (common mental disorders) are the most common psychiatric condition encountered in primary healthcare. Aims: To test the effectiveness of an intervention led by lay health counsellors in primary care settings (the MANAS intervention) to improve the outcomes of people with common mental disorders. Method: Twenty-four primary care facilities (12 public, 12 private) in Goa (India) were randomised to provide either collaborative stepped care or enhanced usual care to adults who screened positive for common mental disorders. Participants were assessed at 2, 6 and 12 months for presence of ICD-10 common mental disorders, the severity of symptoms of depression and anxiety, suicidal behaviour and disability levels. All analyses were intention to treat and carried out separately for private and public facilities and adjusted for the design. The trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00446407). Results: A total of 2796 participants were recruited. In public facilities, the intervention was consistently associated with strong beneficial effects over the 12 months on all outcomes. There was a 30% decrease in the prevalence of common mental disorders among those with baseline ICD-10 diagnoses (risk ratio (RR) = 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.92); and a similar effect among the subgroup of participants with depression (RR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.59–0.98). Suicide attempts/plans showed a 36% reduction over 12 months (RR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.42–0.98) among baseline ICD-10 cases. Strong effects were observed on days out of work and psychological morbidity, and modest effects on overall disability. In contrast, there was little evidence of impact of the intervention on any outcome among participants attending private facilities. Conclusions: Trained lay counsellors working within a collaborative-care model can reduce prevalence of common mental disorders, suicidal behaviour, psychological morbidity and disability days among those attending public primary care facilities.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.092155

Cites

24 of 24 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

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.

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [1]Goldberg D Huxley P Common Mental Disorders: A Biosocial Model. Tavistock/Routledge, 1992
  2. [15]Araya R Rojas G Fritsch R Gaete J Simon G Peters TJ Treating depression in primary care among low-income women in Santiago, Chile: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003; 361: 995– 1000 12660056

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patel, V., Weiss, H. A., Chowdhary, N., Naik, S., Pednekar, S., Chatterjee, S., Bhat, B., Araya, R., King, M., Simon, G., Verdeli, H., & Kirkwood, B. R.
Affiliations
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Sangath (IN)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • The Royal Free Hospital (GB)
  • Group Health Cooperative (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Patel, Vikram
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2011-12
Volume
199
Issue
6
Pages
459-466
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2110879520
Cited by
291
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 6
FWCI
20.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (091834)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
common mental disorders, depression, anxiety, lay health workers, stepped care, collaborative care, primary care, suicide attempts, disability, psychological morbidity, Goa
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Adult, Anxiety Disorders, Community Health Workers, Counseling, Depressive Disorder, Family Practice, Female, Health Facilities, Proprietary, Health Services Accessibility, Health Status, Humans, India, Male, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Severity of Illness Index, Suicide, Program Evaluation, Prevalence, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Public Sector, International Classification of Diseases

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