Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health
. 2023 Aug 4;10:e47. doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38

Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India

Christopher R Bailie 1, Pooja S Pillai 2, Atul Goodwin Singh 2, Jed Leishman 3, Nathan J Grills 1, Kaaren Mathias 2,4,✉
PMCID: PMC10579688  PMID: 37854393

graphic file with name S2054425123000389_figAb.jpg

Open in a new tab

Keywords: caregiver, carer, depression, group intervention, India, mental health

Abstract

There are few evidence-based interventions to support caregiver mental health developed for low- and middle-income countries. Nae Umeed is a community-based group intervention developed with collaboratively with local community health workers in Uttarakhand, India primarily to promote mental wellbeing for caregivers and others. This pre–post study aimed to evaluate whether Nae Umeed improved mental health and social participation for people with mental distress, including caregivers. The intervention consisted of 14 structured group sessions facilitated by community health workers. Among 115 adult participants, 20% were caregivers and 80% were people with disability and other vulnerable community members; 62% had no formal education and 92% were female. Substantial and statistically significant improvements occurred in validated psychometric measures for mental health (12-Item General Health Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire-9) and social participation (Participation Scale). Improvements occurred regardless of caregiver status. This intervention addressed mental health and social participation for marginalised groups that are typically without access to formal mental health care and findings suggest Nae Umeed improved mental health and social participation; however, a controlled community trial would be required to prove causation. Community-based group interventions are a promising approach to improving the mental health of vulnerable groups in South Asia.

Impact statement

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India, there are growing numbers of people with chronic illnesses, who are mostly cared for by their families. This caregiver role providing informal and regular care to someone with a long-term need for care is performed by one in six adults in LMIC. Caregivers are at increased risk of mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Interventions developed in high-income settings to support caregiver mental health, include educational and counselling interventions, however few caregiver interventions have been developed and shown as effective in LMICs. This is important because interventions work best when they are designed to meet local needs and are sensitive to cultural, social and economic contexts. In India, caregivers who are less educated, financially worse-off, socially isolated and typically female generally have worse mental health. These same factors make getting help from health services more challenging, meaning interventions must also be delivered in ways that are accessible to those in need. In this study we evaluated the effectiveness of a locally developed group intervention, Nae Umeed, which aimed to promote mental health in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India in informal urban parts of Dehradun through a community mental health non-profit in late 2020. Although the intervention was initially designed to support caregivers, participants also included people with disabilities and other vulnerable community members. Community health workers facilitated fourteen structured group sessions on topics such as self-care and accessing entitlements. We collected data on measures of mental health and social participation before and after the intervention. Mean scores on these measures improved significantly. These findings suggest Nae Umeed can improve the mental health of participants, and suggeststhat locally developed community-based group interventions can help to address mental health disparities in South Asia where there are few formal treatment services.

Background

Caregiving is an increasingly significant global public health issue as increasing proportions of ageing populations live with disability (Crimmins et al., 2016). Issues around the well-being of caregivers are important for their personal health and the people they provide care for, as well as for the sustainability of health and social care systems to which they are integral (Talley and Crews, 2007). This latter consideration is especially relevant in countries like India, where the demographic transition towards greater noncommunicable disease burden is not matched by increases in health systems capacity (Bollyky et al., 2017), and where family members provide nearly all care for individuals with chronic illness or disability.

Caregiving is associated with both reward and fulfilment, as well as significant challenges (Schulz and Sherwood, 2008). These challenges, termed ‘burden’ (Platt, 1985), can adversely affect caregiver physical, mental and social well-being (Schulz and Sherwood, 2008). Negative mental health impacts from caregiving are consistently described and depend on local cultural and socioeconomic contexts (Bastawrous, 2013) in addition to individual and interpersonal factors, including the relationship between the caregiver and person with disability, type of disability, and age and gender of the caregiver (Pinquart and Sörensen, 2003).

Despite India’s huge diversity, there are common contextual factors that likely shape caregivers’ mental health. Non-biomedical explanatory models of mental illness are widespread (Poreddi et al., 2015; Chakrabarti, 2016), which typically ascribe responsibility for the illness to the person being cared for (Poreddi et al., 2015), and lead to societal stigma and social exclusion (Mathias et al., 2015a; Venkatesh et al., 2015). As in other parts of the world (Macintyre et al., 2018), economic disadvantage is strongly associated with mental ill-health (Mathias et al., 2015b), and in 2019 10% of the Indian population lived below the international poverty line of $2.15 USD/day (The World Bank, 2022). The gender relations in India mean that most caregivers are female (Janardhana et al., 2015; Chakrabarti, 2016). Women in India may experience greater challenges in sustaining caregiving due to systematic disadvantage, leading to feelings of hopelessness and overwhelming stress (Mathias et al., 2019; World Economic Forum, 2021). India’s existing health system is not geared towards supporting caregivers’ mental health (Chakrabarti, 2016) due workforce shortages, limited public mental health services and high out-of-pocket costs for consumers (Patel et al., 2015).

Caregiver ‘burden’ and associated mental health impacts in India have been described in those caring for people diagnosed with stroke (Mandowara et al., 2020), cancer (Menon et al., 2022), cirrhosis (Hareendran et al., 2020), psychosocial disability (Brinda et al., 2014; Stanley et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2021) and dementia (Pattanayak et al., 2010; Srivastava et al., 2016). However, a large proportion of those with disability who receive care do not have a formal diagnosis (Chakrabarti, 2016). Across different disabilities, commonly identified predictors of higher caregiver ‘burden’ or poorer mental health in these studies include female gender (Kumar and Gupta, 2014; Mandowara et al., 2020; Madavanakadu et al., 2022), social isolation (Jagannathan et al., 2014; Bapat and Shankar, 2021), economic disadvantage (Bapat and Shankar, 2021; Madavanakadu et al., 2022), fewer years of education (Jagannathan et al., 2014; Mandowara et al., 2020; Bapat and Shankar, 2021; Menon et al., 2022) and higher care-needs (Brinda et al., 2014; Mandowara et al., 2020). Finally, societal stigma operates towards caregivers of people with particular disabilities such as epilepsy (Bapat and Shankar, 2021) and psychosocial disability (Mathias et al., 2015a; Singh et al., 2016; Mathias et al., 2019; Dijkxhoorn et al., 2022), as well as towards the people they provide care for.

Although existing literature provides a strong rationale to intervene to address caregiver mental health in India, little evidence exists on how this should be done. Studies from high-income settings generally support the short-term effectiveness of non-pharmacologic interventions for improving the well-being and mental health of caregivers (Yesufu-Udechuku et al., 2015; Gabriel et al., 2020; Teahan et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2021; Wiegelmann et al., 2021), including in group settings (Sörensen et al., 2002; Cheng and Zhang, 2020; Hovadick et al., 2021; McLoughlin, 2022). However, these studies are of variable quality, and methods for reporting interventions and assessing effectiveness are heterogeneous. Evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is relatively scarce (Hinton et al., 2019; Gabriel et al., 2020). Within India, a variety of interventions have been trialled at small scale and with mixed results (Das et al., 2006; Dias et al., 2008; Kulhara et al., 2009; Chakraborty et al., 2014; Chatterjee et al., 2014; Lamech et al., 2020; Baruah et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021; Sims et al., 2022; Stoner et al., 2022).

In this context, community-based group interventions offer several potential advantages. Community settings may be more accessible and acceptable than healthcare facilities, (Kohrt et al., 2018) and have been advocated as a specific low-resource strategy (Stanley et al., 2017). Groups also provide mechanisms for strengthening social and peer support (Hoddinott et al., 2010; Gailits et al., 2019; Morrison et al., 2019). On the other hand, group interventions may exacerbate existing inequalities with more educated participants engaging more effectively (Hoddinott et al., 2010). In India, several group interventions for caregivers have been implemented with reasonable feasibility and acceptability (Lamech et al., 2020; Sims et al., 2022; Stoner et al., 2022), although evidence for effectiveness is limited (Malini, 2015). There is an urgent need for cost-effective, equitable and sustainable interventions to strengthen caregiver mental health in LMICs.

Nae Umeed is a community-based group intervention that aims to improve mental health and social inclusion among disadvantaged caregivers of people with disability. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of Nae Umeed in improving mental health and social participation among participants in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India in 2020–2021, and to explore how effectiveness varies with socio-demographic identity.

Methods

Intervention

Nae Umeed was developed by Burans, a community-based partnership project administered by Herbertpur Christian Hospital seeking to improve mental health in communities of Uttarakhand (Burans, 2022). Nae Umeed was informed by previous research identifying women caregivers of people with disability as at high risk of social exclusion and strain (Mathias et al., 2019). It aims to build skills and knowledge in self-care, caregiving, psychosocial well-being, behaviour management, accessing support and entitlements, and management of household finances. The curriculum was developed collaboratively by community health workers, public health practitioners and mental health practitioners working in Uttarakhand in 2017. Nae Umeed was piloted with 15 groups of caregivers in 2019 and in response to feedback, additional content on household budget management and access to government entitlements were added.

In this study, Nae Umeed was delivered in a series of 14 group sessions, with five to seven participants per group. One-hour sessions were delivered weekly using a structured curriculum that covered topics linked to managing mental distress (modules 1–9) as well as managing household finances (modules 10–14). (Parinaam Foundation, 2014; Emmanuel Hospital Association, 2019). Recognising that most participants were not caregivers, facilitators adapted intervention content by providing examples that linked to experiences of psychosocial distress more broadly. Table 1 outlines the topics covered by the Nae Umeed module and they can be seen as relevant for people with mental distress. Participants were allocated into groups from their local community. Venues were chosen to maximise physical distancing and privacy. Sessions tools included visual aids from the manuals, whole group or small group discussions, role play activities, group teambuilding activities, and group revision quizzes. Several modules included short homework assignments, for example discussing an aspect of the session content with family members. Over the course of the intervention, participants were provided with several pamphlets related to the sessions, for example on self-care. The pamphlets on self-care were illustrated and the content was discussed with practical examples to cater to all levels of literacy.

Table 1.

Summary of topics covered in the Nae Umeed group intervention by session

Session Topic summary
1. Introduction to group and curriculum. Discussion of roles of caregivers
2. Mental illness: causes and symptoms
3. Importance of communication when caring for someone with mental illness
4. Techniques for behaviour modification
5. Medications: treatment plans, side effects
6. Effects of alcohol on health
7. Stress management techniques
8. Self-care
9. Recap session
10. Introduction to financial planning
11. Budgeting; tracking income and expenses
12. Strategies for saving money
13. Borrowing money safely
14. Recap of financial literacy session
Open in a new tab

Sessions were facilitated by nine community health workers, who facilitated two groups each (yielding a total of 18 groups), and also supported recruitment. Facilitators were trained to deliver Nae Umeed using a participatory facilitation style. Trainers were Burans project officers who had a minimum of 5 years working in community development and were qualified with a master’s degree in social work. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, facilitator training was provided online and supplemented with interactive discussions on each module using Whatsapp, as well as face-to-face meetings where possible.

Facilitators referred illness-specific queries about how to manage people with disability to the health professionals leading a disability programme at Herbertpur Christian Hospital, which hosted the implementation of Nae Umeed.

Study design

The study design was an uncontrolled pre–post (before–after) study.

Participants and setting

Given the real-world setting of this trial with high rates of mental distress post-lockdown, we elected to invite as many participants as community facilitators could accommodate in groups. Pragmatically they proposed they could manage up to a maximum of 18 groups with a maximum of 7 members per group, thus we invited a total of 126 people to participate in the intervention.

This intervention study was implemented from August to November 2020, when India was emerging from a harsh 12-week lockdown in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was widespread anxiety and reduced freedom of movement for most people. The setting was the urban and semi-urban slum areas of Dehradun. Burans staff invited individuals to participate in Nae Umeed through existing project networks involving people with disability and their household members. To be considered eligible to take part in the study, individuals had to be at least 18 years old, plan to reside in the area for the following 15 weeks and either be a caregiver or be a household member of a person with disability or identify themselves as experiencing significant psychosocial stress. In a setting with limited access to health care or social support for disability or mental health care, we used inclusive criteria and disability referred to any household member who had impaired function or ability to carry out activities of daily living. People with disabilities represented included people with sensory deficits, locomotor challenges as well as psychosocial disability, although the majority of participants would not have had a formal mental health–related diagnosis or be receiving formal support or treatment (Mathias et al., 2015a). There was no requirement regarding the duration of caregiving or caregiving role (i.e. primary caregiver or other). Although the intervention was designed for caregivers, parameters for participation included other community members with mental distress to increase opportunities for social support (Gailits et al., 2019; Morrison et al., 2019) and reduce labelling and stigma of group members (Mathias et al., 2015a, 2019). In instances where participants included caregivers and people with disability from the same household or family, they participated in different groups. Recruitment was performed by Burans staff.

Consistent with the ethics approval, informed verbal consent was obtained and documented on forms by health workers who observed and signed that they had witnessed the consent process in line with recommended processes for meaningful informed consent (Bhutta, 2004).

Outcomes

The primary outcomes were the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), which indicates risk of depression, and the short General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), which measures mental distress. The PHQ-9 has been validated in diverse settings in India and has shown stable performance across demographic subgroups and time (De Man et al., 2021). The GHQ-12 has been widely validated as a screening instrument for depression, including in India, and has been found to be robust across gender, age and educational level (Goldberg et al., 1997). The secondary outcome was change in score on the Participation Scale (P-scale) (van Brakel et al., 2006), which was designed to measure client-perceived social participation and developed and validated in South Asia.

Data collection

Pre-intervention data were collected in the 2 weeks before starting the intervention. Post-intervention data were collected 3–4 months later, within 3 weeks of completion of the intervention. Demographic variables were recorded at both pre- and post-intervention outcome assessments. Data collection was performed by three Burans project officers (who were not involved as group facilitators), who recorded participants’ verbal responses to questions. Data were checked by team leaders, and queries or inconsistencies clarified with team members or participants where necessary.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using R version 4.1.2 (R Core Team, 2021). Participant ages were summarised as a median and range, and categorical demographic variables as counts and sample proportions. Participant demographic data recorded at the pre-intervention assessment were used for all analyses, except when this data was missing, in which case data recorded at the post-intervention assessment were used if available. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed as mean score change among participants who completed both pre- and post-intervention assessments. Score change distributions for each outcome were visually inspected for normality using Q–Q plots. Confidence intervals (Cis) and p-values for paired two-sided t-tests were calculated using the t.test function. Due to higher than anticipated enrolment of non-caregivers, a post-hoc subgroup analysis of both primary and secondary outcomes by caregiver status (caregiver or non-caregiver) was performed to specifically investigate change among caregivers. As a further exploratory analysis, multivariable linear regression models were fit to change in each outcome score, including pre-intervention score and all demographic variables as predictors. Statistical significance was assessed at a threshold of p = 0.05 without adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Trial registration

The study protocol was retrospectively registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: ACTRN12623000047695).

Results

Recruitment was completed in early-to-mid August 2020. Overall, 124 people agreed to take part in the intervention. Eight subsequently left due either to migration or to conflicting employment commitments. The remaining 116 were recruited as study participants and completed pre-intervention data collection (Figure 1). Data from the 115 participants who completed follow-up in late November and early December 2020 were analysed.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Flowchart showing eligibility, recruitment, follow-up and inclusion in analysis.

The median age of participants was 35 years, 106 (92%) were female and 71 (62%) reported having completed no formal education (Table 2). There were 23 (20%) participants identifying as caregivers, 75 (65%) people with disability and 17 (15%) others (comprising other vulnerable community members identified by Burans staff, including members of gender-based violence support groups).

Table 2.

Demographic characteristics of 115 study participants included in analysis by caregiver status (number of participants and percent of sample, unless otherwise specified)

Non-caregivers (N = 92) Caregivers (N = 23) Overall (N = 115)
Age (years)
   Median (range) 35 (18, 70) 35 (14, 60) 35 (14, 70)
Gender
   Male 6 (6.5%) 3 (13.0%) 9 (7.8%)
   Female 86 (93.5%) 20 (87.0%) 106 (92.2%)
Marital status
   Married 71 (77.2%) 16 (69.6%) 87 (75.7%)
   Widowed 12 (13.0%) 1 (4.3%) 13 (11.3%)
   Separated 2 (2.2%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.7%)
   Unmarried 7 (7.6%) 6 (26.1%) 13 (11.3%)
Caste
   General 35 (38.0%) 7 (30.4%) 42 (36.5%)
   Other backwards class 22 (23.9%) 8 (34.8%) 30 (26.1%)
   Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe 21 (22.8%) 6 (26.1%) 27 (23.5%)
   N/A 14 (15.2%) 2 (8.7%) 16 (13.9%)
Religion
   Hindu 57 (62.0%) 12 (52.2%) 69 (60.0%)
   Muslim 34 (37.0%) 11 (47.8%) 45 (39.1%)
   Sikh 1 (1.1%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.9%)
Years of education
   0 60 (65.2%) 11 (47.8%) 71 (61.7%)
   1–5 12 (13.0%) 4 (17.4%) 16 (13.9%)
   6–10 18 (19.6%) 5 (21.7%) 23 (20.0%)
   >10 2 (2.2%) 3 (13.0%) 5 (4.3%)
Housing type a
   Kaccha 37 (40.2%) 5 (21.7%) 42 (36.5%)
   Semi-pucca 22 (23.9%) 7 (30.4%) 29 (25.2%)
   Pucca 33 (35.9%) 11 (47.8%) 44 (38.3%)
Household structure
   Joint family 15 (16.3%) 7 (30.4%) 22 (19.1%)
   Nuclear family 77 (83.7%) 16 (69.6%) 93 (80.9%)
Open in a new tab
a

Pucca, permanent houses constructed of conventional modern building materials; kaccha: semi-permanent houses made of mud, unfired bricks, grasses and makeshift materials; semi-pucca: a combination.

Pre- and post-intervention outcome scores are summarised in Table 3. Significant mean improvements between the pre- and post- assessments were observed for both primary (PHQ-9: 5.7 points (95% CI: 4.6–6.7), GHQ-12: 7.5 points (95% CI: 6.1–8.8)) and secondary outcomes of social participation (P-scale: 9.8 points (95% CI: 7.3–12.3)). In subgroup analyses, statistically significant improvements were observed for both caregiver and non-caregiver groups.

Table 3.

Participant outcome scores before and after participating in the Nae Umeed intervention, overall and by caregiver status

Mean score
Outcome Pre-intervention Post-intervention Mean difference (95% CI) p-value
PHQ-9 a
   Overall 11.4 5.7 5.7 (4.6–6.7) <0.001
   Caregivers 7.8 4.2 3.7 (2.1–5.2) <0.001
   Non-caregivers 12.3 6.1 6.2 (4.9–7.4) <0.001
GHQ-12 b
   Overall 15.2 7.8 7.5 (6.1–8.8) <0.001
   Caregivers 11.0 6.7 4.3 (2.7–5.9) <0.001
   Non-caregivers 16.3 8.1 8.2 (6.6–9.8) <0.001
P-scale c
   Overall 15.2 5.3 9.8 (7.3–12.3) <0.001
   Caregivers 11.1 4.2 7.0 (1.7–12.2) 0.012
   Non-caregivers 16.2 5.6 10.6 (7.7–13.4) <0.001
Open in a new tab
a

patient health questionnaire-9.

b

short general health questionnaire.

c

participation scale.

In the multivariable linear regression models, worse (higher) pre-intervention scores were strongly associated with larger improvements in all outcomes (Table 4), meaning those with more room to benefit, improved more. Widowed or separated participant marital status (compared with married) was associated with significantly less improvement of the GHQ-12 but not on other measures. No consistent effects were detected across other predictor variables.

Table 4.

Linear regression coefficients for the mutually adjusted effects of participant socio-demographic variables on a standard deviation improvement in outcome score

Improvement on PHQ-9 a Improvement on GHQ-12 b Improvement on p-scale c
Characteristic Beta 95% CI d p-value Beta 95% CI p-value Beta 95% CI p-value
Baseline score 0.77 0.65, 0.89 <0.001 0.82 0.71, 0.93 <0.001 0.88 0.78, 1.0 <0.001
Age (years) −0.01 −0.02, 0.01 0.3 0.01 −0.01, 0.02 0.4 −0.01 −0.02, 0.00 0.2
Gender
   Male
   Female −0.08 −0.56, 0.41 0.8 0.24 −0.16, 0.65 0.2 0.24 −0.15, 0.62 0.2
Marital status
   Married
   Widowed −0.16 −0.55, 0.24 0.4 −0.52 −0.85, −0.19 0.003 −0.01 −0.33, 0.31 >0.9
   Separated −0.49 −1.4, 0.39 0.3 −1.0 −1.7, −0.26 0.010 0.48 −0.22, 1.2 0.2
   Unmarried 0.14 −0.34, 0.62 0.6 0.16 −0.24, 0.56 0.4 −0.30 −0.67, 0.08 0.13
Caste
   General
   Other backwards class −0.15 −0.51, 0.21 0.4 0.65 0.35, 1.0 <0.001 0.19 −0.09, 0.48 0.2
   Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe 0.00 −0.32, 0.31 >0.9 0.18 −0.08, 0.45 0.2 0.19 −0.06, 0.43 0.14
   N/A −1.0 −1.3, −0.60 <0.001 −0.23 −0.54, 0.07 0.14 −0.01 −0.30, 0.28 >0.9
Religion
   Hindu
   Muslim −0.10 −0.43, 0.24 0.6 −0.20 −0.48, 0.09 0.2 0.08 −0.19, 0.34 0.6
   Sikh 1.0 −0.23, 2.2 0.12 0.78 −0.22, 1.8 0.13 0.34 −0.59, 1.3 0.5
Years of education
   0
   1–5 −0.11 −0.46, 0.24 0.5 0.07 −0.22, 0.36 0.6 −0.07 −0.34, 0.20 0.6
   6–10 −0.14 −0.44, 0.17 0.4 0.07 −0.19, 0.32 0.6 0.09 −0.16, 0.33 0.5
    > 10 −0.04 −0.66, 0.58 0.9 0.21 −0.31, 0.73 0.4 0.22 −0.27, 0.70 0.4
Housing type e
   Kaccha
   Semi-pucca −0.01 −0.32, 0.29 >0.9 −0.07 −0.32, 0.19 0.6 −0.01 −0.25, 0.23 >0.9
   Pucca 0.05 −0.25, 0.35 0.7 0.28 0.03, 0.54 0.032 0.05 −0.18, 0.29 0.7
Household structure
   Joint family
   Nuclear family 0.24 −0.07, 0.54 0.13 0.17 −0.09, 0.42 0.2 −0.13 −0.37, 0.11 0.3
Participant type
   Non-caregivers
   Caregivers 0.05 −0.25, 0.35 0.7 −0.11 −0.36, 0.14 0.4 0.00 −0.23, 0.22 >0.9
Open in a new tab
a

patient health questionnaire-9.

b

short general health questionnaire.

c

participation scale.

d

CI, confidence interval.

e

Pucca, permanent houses constructed of conventional modern building materials; kaccha: semi-permanent houses made of mud, unfired bricks, grasses, and makeshift materials; semi-pucca: a combination.

Discussion

Over the period of this study, Nae Umeed participants self-reported improved general well-being, greater social participation and fewer depressive symptoms using validated psychometric scales. Improvements were noted irrespective of caregiver status. Participants from vulnerable or marginalised groups such as women, people of disadvantaged caste and people with lower levels of education were well represented in the intervention, and there was no strong evidence suggesting these socio-demographic markers of disadvantage limited their capacity for benefit.

These findings are broadly consistent with the limited existing evidence for effectiveness of community health worker–delivered interventions in LMICs for mental health care and prevention (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group et al., 2021; van Ginneken et al., 2021). Specific evidence for effectiveness of group caregiver interventions exists for high-income settings (Sörensen et al., 2002; Cheng and Zhang, 2020; Hovadick et al., 2021; McLoughlin, 2022), but is limited in the South Asian context. Studies of group interventions for family caregivers of persons with schizophrenia (Sims et al., 2022) and dementia (Lamech et al., 2020; Stoner et al., 2022) in India have been described but did not include measures of effectiveness. In the only published study (to our knowledge) quantitatively assessing effectiveness of a group caregiver intervention in India, a support group intervention was associated with increased family system strength scores in rural caregivers of stroke patients (Malini, 2015).

Other interventions to improve caregiver well-being in India have had mixed success. Facility-based educational interventions, predominantly for caregivers of people with psychosocial disability, have some evidence for effectiveness (Das et al., 2006; Kulhara et al., 2009; Chakraborty et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2021). A home-care support intervention was associated with improvement in mental health of caregivers of people with dementia in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Goa (Dias et al., 2008). In another RCT, a multicomponent community care intervention had no significant effects on ‘burden’ reported by caregivers of people with schizophrenia (Chatterjee et al., 2014). An attempt to trial an online intervention for dementia caregivers suffered from low retention (Baruah et al., 2021). The current study adds to limited evidence for community-based group interventions LMICs, which may represent an efficient strategy to address mental health disparities in resource-limited settings (Hinton et al., 2019).

In the current study, improvements were observed regardless of caregiver status, suggesting that Nae Umeed may operate via mechanisms not specific to caregivers. In fact, larger improvements were observed among non-caregivers than caregivers. This finding may be explained by lower (better) pre-intervention outcome scores across outcome scales among caregivers versus non-caregivers recruited to this study (leaving less room for improvement), rather than reduced effectiveness due to caregiver status. This supposition is supported by results of the multivariable analyses showing negligible effects of caregiver status after adjustment for pre-intervention score and demographic variables. In North India, people with poor mental health struggle with social exclusion, finances and lack of access to care (Mathias et al., 2015a, 2018). Nae Umeed includes content on self-care, managing stress, psychoeducation and financial literacy, as well as offering a potential mechanism to strengthen social inclusion through peer support. These aspects of the intervention may be of wider relevance to people dealing with mental health issues of a family member, or their own. The mixed nature of groups in this study likely meant that participation was less stigmatising for all participants, potentially contributing to positive outcomes.

Several factors should be considered in trialling or implementing Nae Umeed or similar interventions in other settings. Nae Umeed was designed for the setting of low-income families in rural and urban Uttarakhand and may require some adaptations for other contexts. For example, some aspects of the financial inclusion modules are specific to Indian economic settings. Caregivers elsewhere will face different sets of issues that may warrant different content or delivery. Piloting in new target settings will be necessary to inform these adaptations. The organisational context should also be carefully considered. In this study, Nae Umeed was implemented via a well-established platform with strong community relationships. Facilitators were community health workers with ties to communities in which they were working. These factors likely promoted recruitment and retention and possibly effectiveness.

This study is strengthened by low drop-out and integration with an existing community mental health project. The main limitation is the absence of a comparison group, meaning the attribution of outcome improvements to the intervention is not clear. The study overlapped with a decline in India’s first wave of COVID-19 and the easing of associated public health restrictions, shifts which probably had independent positive effects on the mental and social well-being of participants. Social desirability bias may have also contributed to the positive outcomes at the follow-up assessment, particularly as outcomes were solicited in-person by a community health worker. Recruiters may have focussed on including those they felt were more likely to benefit from the intervention; the total number of identified eligible individuals is not available. These biases could have led to overestimation of the effectiveness of Nae Umeed. Outcomes were assessed within 3 weeks after completion of the intervention, and a follow-up would be required to assess how long these benefits were sustained.

Future research should focus on assessing sustained effects on caregiver mental health, as well as exploring intervention mechanisms and implementation issues. A cluster RCT with longer follow-up would provide a more confident estimate of intervention effectiveness. The findings of this study highlight the current evidence gap and provide preliminary evidence for effectiveness. Ongoing qualitative research will help tailor Nae Umeed, identify optimal measurable outcomes for future studies, and explore barriers and facilitators to implementation in the current setting.

Conclusions

The findings of this study are consistent with the effectiveness of Nae Umeed in improving mental health and social participation in caregiver and non-caregiver participants; however, further research is required to establish the degree to which improvements can be causally attributed to the intervention. Nevertheless, the intervention was successful in reaching marginalised target groups typically not well serviced by the traditional mental health care system. Community-based group interventions are a promising but underexplored strategy for addressing mental health disparities for vulnerable populations in South Asia.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the whole Burans team in Dehradun district for the great work implementing Nae Umeed and to the CHGN-Cluster for support in implementation at the peri-urban site. Appreciation to Dr. Shubha Nagesh for the interviews she conducted to help understand feasibility and acceptability of this intervention in the community. Thanks to Herbertpur Christian Hospital for their ongoing support to all implementation and evaluation work.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2023.38.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The complete data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

Author contribution

Conceptualisation: P.S.P., K.M.; Formal analysis: C.R.B., J.L.,P.S.P.,K.M.; Investigation: P.S.P., A.G.S.; Methodology: C.R.B., P.S.P., K.M.; Project administration: P.S.P., A.G.S.; Supervision: N.J.G., K.M.; Writing (original draft): C.R.B.; Writing (review and editing): P.S.P., N.J.G., K.M.

Financial support

Research costs were covered by existing programme funds.

Competing interest

The authors declare none.

Ethics standard

Approval for this project was provided by the institutional ethics committee of the Emmanuel Hospital Association (protocol number: 240).

References

  1. Bapat DA and Shankar A (2021) A review of caregiver distress in epilepsy in India: Current issues and future directions for research. Epilepsy & Behavior 116, 107787. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baruah U, Varghese M, Loganathan S, Mehta KM, Gallagher-Thompson D, Zandi D, Dua T and Pot AM (2021) Feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of an online training and support program for caregivers of people with dementia in India: A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 36(4), 606–617. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bastawrous M (2013) Caregiver burden--A critical discussion. International Journal of Nursing Studies 50(3), 431–441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhutta ZA (2004) Beyond informed consent. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82(10), 771–777. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bollyky TJ, Templin T, Cohen M and Dieleman JL (2017) Lower-income countries that face the most rapid shift in noncommunicable disease burden are also the least prepared. Health Affairs (Millwood) 36(11), 1866–1875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinda EM, Rajkumar AP, Enemark U, Attermann J and Jacob KS (2014) Cost and burden of informal caregiving of dependent older people in a rural Indian community. BMC Health Services Research 14(1), 207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burans (2022) About us. Available at https://burans.org/about-us/ (accessed 11 October 2022).
  8. Chakrabarti S (2016) Research on family caregiving for mental illness in India and its impact on clinical practice: Are we doing enough to help families? Indian Journal of Social Psychiatry 32(1), 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  9. Chakraborty S, Bhatia T, Anderson C, Nimgaonkar VL and Deshpande SN (2014) Caregiver’s burden, coping, and psycho-education in Indian households with single- and multiple-affected members with schizophrenia. International Journal of Mental Health 43(1), 30–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chatterjee S, Naik S, John S, Dabholkar H, Balaji M, Koschorke M, Varghese M, Thara R, Weiss HA, Williams P, McCrone P, Patel V and Thornicroft G (2014) Effectiveness of a community-based intervention for people with schizophrenia and their caregivers in India (COPSI): A randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 383(9926), 1385–1394. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheng S-T and Zhang F (2020) A comprehensive meta-review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on nonpharmacological interventions for informal dementia caregivers. BMC Geriatrics 20(1), 137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, Purgato M, Abdulmalik JO, Prina E, Ceccarelli C, Tol WA, van Ginneken N, Uphoff E, Papola D, Amaddeo F and Churchill R (2021) Primary‐level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3, CD014722. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crimmins EM, Zhang Y and Saito Y (2016) Trends over 4 decades in disability-free life expectancy in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 106(7), 1287–1293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Das S, Saravanan B, Karunakaran KP, Manoranjitham S, Ezhilarasu P and Jacob KS (2006) Effect of a structured educational intervention on explanatory models of relatives of patients with schizophrenia: Randomised controlled trial. The British Journal of Psychiatry 188, 286–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. De Man J, Absetz P, Sathish T, Desloge A, Haregu T, Oldenburg B, Johnson LCM, Thankappan KR and Williams ED (2021) Are the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 suitable for use in India? A psychometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 676398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dias A, Dewey ME, D’Souza J, Dhume R, Motghare DD, Shaji KS, Menon R, Prince M and Patel V (2008) The effectiveness of a home care program for supporting caregivers of persons with dementia in developing countries: A randomised controlled trial from Goa, India. PLoS One 3(6), e2333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dijkxhoorn MA, Padmakar A, Bunders JFG and Regeer BJ (2022) Stigma, lost opportunities, and growth: Understanding experiences of caregivers of persons with mental illness in Tamil Nadu, India. Transcultural Psychiatry 60, 255–271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Emmanuel Hospital Association (2019) Nae Umeed – Strengthening Caregivers in the Community. Available at https://burans.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/nae-umeed.pdf (accessed 7 October 2022).
  19. Gabriel I, Creedy D and Coyne E (2020) A systematic review of psychosocial interventions to improve quality of life of people with cancer and their family caregivers. Nursing Open 7(5), 1299–1312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gailits N, Mathias K, Nouvet E, Pillai P and Schwartz L (2019) Women’s freedom of movement and participation in psychosocial support groups: Qualitative study in northern India. BMC Public Health 19(1), 725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O and Rutter C (1997) The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychological Medicine 27(1), 191–197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hareendran A, Devadas K, Sreesh S, Oommen TT, Varghese J, Lubina S, Nahaz N, Krishna A and Kunhi NMM (2020) Quality of life, caregiver burden and mental health disorders in primary caregivers of patients with cirrhosis. Liver International 40(12), 2939–2949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hinton L, Tran D, Nguyen T-N, Ho J and Gitlin L (2019) Interventions to support family caregivers of people living with dementia in high, middle and low-income countries in Asia: A scoping review. BMJ Global Health 4(6), e001830. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hoddinott P, Allan K, Avenell A and Britten J (2010) Group interventions to improve health outcomes: A framework for their design and delivery. BMC Public Health 10(1), 800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hovadick AC, Jardim VR, Paúl C, Pagano A, Reis I and Torres H (2021) Interventions to improve the well-being of family caregivers of patients on hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis: A systematic review. PeerJ 9, e11713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jagannathan A, Thirthalli J, Hamza A, Nagendra HR and Gangadhar BN (2014) Predictors of family caregiver burden in schizophrenia: Study from an in-patient tertiary care hospital in India. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 8, 94–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Janardhana N, Raghunandan S, Naidu DM, Saraswathi L and Seshan V (2015) Care giving of people with severe mental illness: An Indian experience. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 37(2), 184–194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kohrt BA, Asher L, Bhardwaj A, Fazel M, Jordans MJD, Mutamba BB, Nadkarni A, Pedersen GA, Singla DR and Patel V (2018) The role of communities in mental health care in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-review of components and competencies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15(6), 1279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kulhara P, Chakrabarti S, Avasthi A, Sharma A and Sharma S (2009) Psychoeducational intervention for caregivers of Indian patients with schizophrenia: A randomised-controlled trial. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 119(6), 472–483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kumar K and Gupta M (2014) Clinical and socio-demographic determinants of psychological health and burden in family caregivers of patients with unipolar depression. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 9, 51–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lambert S, Brahim LO, McCusker J, Coumoundouros C, Audet L-A, Yaffe M, Kayser J, Magalhaes M, Belzile E and Turner N (2021) Non-pharmacological interventions for caregivers with depression and caregivers of care recipients with co-morbid depression. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine 36(10), 3159–3178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lamech N, Lakshminarayanan M, Vaitheswaran S, John S and Rangaswamy T (2020) Support groups for family caregivers of persons with dementia in India. Dementia 20(3), 1172–1181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Macintyre A, Ferris D, Gonçalves B and Quinn N (2018) What has economics got to do with it? The impact of socioeconomic factors on mental health and the case for collective action. Palgrave Communications 4(1), 10. [Google Scholar]
  34. Madavanakadu S, Grills NJ, Scaria L, Benny AM and Joubert L (2022) Prevalence and predictive factors of strain among caregivers of people with disability: Results from R-Care community survey, Kerala, India. Disability and Rehabilitation 44(21), 6333–6339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Malini MH (2015) Impact of support group intervention on family system strengths of rural caregivers of stroke patients in India. The Australian Journal of Rural Health 23(2), 95–100. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mandowara B, Patel AN, Amin AA, Phatak A and Desai S (2020) Burden faced by caregivers of stroke patients who attend rural-based medical teaching hospital in Western India. Annals of Indian Academy of Neurology 23(1), 38–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Mathias K, Goicolea I, Kermode M, Singh L, Shidhaye R and Sebastian MS (2015a) Cross-sectional study of depression and help-seeking in Uttarakhand, North India. BMJ Open 5(11), e008992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mathias K, Kermode M, Goicolea I, Seefeldt L, Shidhaye R and Sebastian MS (2018) Social distance and community attitudes towards people with psycho-social disabilities in Uttarakhand, India. Community Mental Health Journal 54(3), 343–353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mathias K, Kermode M, Sebastian MS, Davar B and Goicolea I (2019) An asymmetric burden: Experiences of men and women as caregivers of people with psycho-social disabilities in rural North India. Transcultural Psychiatry 56(1), 76–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mathias K, Kermode M, Sebastian MS, Koschorke M and Goicolea I (2015b) Under the banyan tree - Exclusion and inclusion of people with mental disorders in rural North India. BMC Public Health 15(1), 446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. McLoughlin B (2022) Group-based interventions for Carers of people with dementia: A systematic review. Innovation in Aging 6(3), igac011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Menon N, Patil VM, Ramaswamy A, Gattani S, Castelino R, Dhekale R, Gota V, Sekar A, Deodhar J, Mahajan SG, Daptardar A, Prabhash K, Banavali SD, Badwe RA and Noronha V (2022) Caregiver burden in older Indian patients with cancer- Experience from a tertiary care center. Journal of Geriatric Oncology 13, 970–977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Morrison J, Osrin D, Alcock G, Azad K, Bamjan J, Budhathoki B, Kuddus A, Mala MA, Manandhar D, Nkhata A, Pathak S, Phiri T, Rath S, Tripathy P, Costello A and Houweling TAJ (2019) Exploring the equity impact of a maternal and newborn health intervention: A qualitative study of participatory women’s groups in rural South Asia and Africa. International Journal for Equity in Health 18(1), 55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Parinaam Foundation (2014) Parinaam’s Diksha Financial Literacy Program Trainer’s Manual. Available at https://burans.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/financial-lit.pdf (accessed 7 October 2022).
  45. Patel V, Parikh R, Nandraj S, Balasubramaniam P, Narayan K, Paul VK, Kumar AKS, Chatterjee M and Reddy KS (2015) Assuring health coverage for all in India. The Lancet 386(10011), 2422–2435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Pattanayak RD, Jena R, Tripathi M and Khandelwal SK (2010) Assessment of burden in caregivers of Alzheimer’s disease from India. Asian Journal of Psychiatry 3(3), 112–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pinquart M and Sörensen S (2003) Differences between caregivers and noncaregivers in psychological health and physical health: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging 18(2), 250–267. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Platt S (1985) Measuring the burden of psychiatric illness on the family: An evaluation of some rating scales. Psychological Medicine 15(2), 383–393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Poreddi V, Thimmaiah BIRR and Math SB (2015) Mental health literacy among caregivers of persons with mental illness: A descriptive survey. Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice 6(3), 355–360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. R Core Team (2021) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  51. Schulz R and Sherwood PR (2008) Physical and mental health effects of family caregiving. The American Journal of Nursing 108(9 Suppl), 23–27; quiz 27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sims S, Hepsipa Omega Juliet S, Joseph J, Gopal S, Raghavan V, Venkatraman L and Padmavati R (2022) Acceptability of peer support for people with schizophrenia in Chennai, India: A cross sectional study amongst people with lived experience, caregivers, and mental health professionals. Frontiers in Psychiatry 13, 797427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Singh A, Mattoo SK and Grover S (2016) Stigma and its correlates among caregivers of schizophrenia: A study from North India. Psychiatry Research 241, 302–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Singh B, Singh U, Gupta R, Singh P and Purushottam (2021) Brief family intervention for caregivers of patients with Schizophrenia. Indian Journal of Behavioural Sciences 24(01), 38–47. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sörensen S, Pinquart M and Duberstein P (2002) How effective are interventions with caregivers? An updated meta-analysis. The Gerontologist 42(3), 356–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Srivastava G, Tripathi RK, Tiwari SC, Singh B and Tripathi SM (2016) Caregiver burden and quality of life of key caregivers of patients with dementia. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 38(2), 133–136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Stanley S, Balakrishnan S and Ilangovan S (2017) Psychological distress, perceived burden and quality of life in caregivers of persons with schizophrenia. Journal of Mental Health 26(2), 134–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Stoner CR, Lakshminarayanan M, Mograbi DC, Vaitheswaran S, Bertrand E, Brum PS, Durgante H, Ferri CP, Mkenda S, Walker R, Dotchin C, Paddick SM, Chandra M, Krishna M, Du B, Shaji KS, Fisher E and Spector A (2022) Development and acceptability of a brief, evidence-based dementia awareness for caregivers course in low- and middle-income countries. Dementia (London) 21(2), 598–617. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Talley RC and Crews JE (2007) Framing the public health of caregiving. American Journal of Public Health 97(2), 224–228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Teahan Á, Lafferty A, McAuliffe E, Phelan A, O’Sullivan L, O’Shea D, Nicholson E and Fealy G (2020) Psychosocial interventions for family Carers of people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Aging and Health 32(9), 1198–1213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. The World Bank (2022) Poverty and Inequality Platform. Available at https://pip.worldbank.org/home (accessed 8 October 2022).
  62. van Brakel WH, Anderson AM, Mutatkar RK, Bakirtzief Z, Nicholls PG, Raju MS and Das-Pattanayak RK (2006) The participation scale: Measuring a key concept in public health. Disability and Rehabilitation 28(4), 193–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. van Ginneken N, Chin WY, Lim YC, Ussif A, Singh R, Shahmalak U, Purgato M, Rojas-García A, Uphoff E, McMullen S, et al. (2021). Primary‐level worker interventions for the care of people living with mental disorders and distress in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 8, CD009149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Venkatesh BT, Andrews T, Mayya SS, Singh MM and Parsekar SS (2015) Perception of stigma toward mental illness in South India. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4(3), 449–453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Wiegelmann H, Speller S, Verhaert L-M, Schirra-Weirich L and Wolf-Ostermann K (2021) Psychosocial interventions to support the mental health of informal caregivers of persons living with dementia – A systematic literature review. BMC Geriatrics 21(1), 94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. World Economic Forum (2021) Global Gender Gap Report 2021. Geneva.
  67. Yesufu-Udechuku A, Harrison B, Mayo-Wilson E, Young N, Woodhams P, Shiers D, Kuipers E and Kendall T (2015) Interventions to improve the experience of caring for people with severe mental illness: Systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry 206(4), 268–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr1

Author comment: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR1

Kaaren Mathias 1

Thirdly, we are a multidisciplinary, multi-country authorship team who are truly global in nature. PP and AGS are respectively managerial and social work -based mental health practitioners based in a non-profit organisation in North India; KM works and researches in community mental health in New Zealand and India, NG and CB are public health physicians working between Australia and India and JL is a physician who volunteered to support with analysis who works in New Zealand and Australia.

We believe this paper fits Global mental health well, and offers a solid account of the pilot evaluation of the effectiveness of a novel caregiver group intervention.

Thank you for your consideration of this paper for publication,

Kaaren Mathias – on behalf of the author team

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr2

Review: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR2

Reviewed by: Anonymous

The study looks very promising in order to address care and improve mental health in settings where services are scarce. The attention to caregivers is complemented by the non caregiver’s group, that showed even better results. The low drop-in rate shows that the intervention is accepted and sustainable. The article should be complemented by another study that describes more in depth the content of the program, in order to facilitate its dissemination. Immediate comparison arises with psycho-education provided to family members in HIC in order to support them for the high burden they perceive. Nonetheless, its seems that this program is more focused on social participation and well-being rather than on coping with illness of a relative and related information.

The lack of a control group is a limit (recognized by the authors), as well as the short-term evaluation after its completion. It will be important to understand if the outcomes will be maintained over a longer period of time.

Statistical analysis looks sufficient to the scope of the study.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr3

Review: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR3

Reviewed by: Sridhar Vaitheswaran1

Congratulations on completing this much-needed piece of work to develop and test interventions for caregivers in India. I have a few suggestions and queries that can help to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. Page 4 Lines 70-73: The gender relations in India mean that most caregivers are female (Janardhana et al. 2015, Chakrabarti 2016) and may experience greater challenges in sustaining caregiving due to systematic disadvantage (World Economic Forum 2021), leading to (Mathias et al. 2019). This sentence appears incomplete.

2. While the authors mention that including non-caregivers helped in improving social participation and reducing stigma, I think this seriously limits the ability of the study to measure improvements in caregivers. I believe that Nae Umeed was developed specifically for caregivers. Only a fifth of the participants is caregivers.

3. Ideally to study the effectiveness of an intervention, a blinded randomised controlled study design should be used. In this case, we cannot say the authors have measured the effectiveness. They have found a positive trend towards improvement.

4. Is informed verbal consent adequate? Is there a record of the consent forms available?

5. Among the participants who were caregivers, it would be helpful for the readers to know, who they were providing care for and what the nature of the illnesses was.

6. Among 75 participants with psychosocial disability, what was the nature of the psychosocial disability? Did they have a formal diagnosis?

7. The authors should elaborate on what they mean by “others” about the 17 participants.

8. The authors report that a larger improvement was noted among non-caregivers. The intervention clearly is not specific to caregivers. For those with poor mental health status, how many were receiving formal support, including medicines?

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr4

Review: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR4

Reviewed by: Anonymous

1. This is a good attempt to understand the impact of a structured program even though it would have been better had the study been a RCT design rather than pre post design. Of course the authors are acknowledging this and recommending this as a future design

2. Because this is not an RCT, the authors should reconsider calling this an effectiveness study.

3. Since the study participants consisted of only 20% caregivers, the title of the study is misleading. It would be advisable to consider changing the title.

3. As there were only 23 caregivers in the study, the study cannot claim that this is a promising approach for caregivers as such

4. The duration of caregiving and types of disorders in the affected family members will be useful to be provided in the sample description of the caregivers.

5. The consort diagram does not give the number of people approached for the study and the proportion of caregivers and non caregivers who agreed to participate as this will indicate the generalisability of the findings.

6. As participants included both caregivers and people with psychosocial disability, the authors should clarify if the mixed group included people from the same families. This will have an impact on the outcome too

7. It is not clear from the description of the procedure, how they determined the sample size of 100 to 130. It is not sufficient to simply say it is a pragmatic sample size.

8. It will be useful for the readers to know what were the mean number of sessions attended by the participants.14 sessions appears a lot of commitment for participants

9. The authors should describe how many community health workers delivered how many groups and how was the fidelity to the intervention checked and confirmed.

10. The authors have stated in line 218-219 that worse pre-intervention scores were associated more with more improvement and the non caregiver group had worse baseline scores. The authors should discuss the impact of this on the overall outcome of the study.

11. In Line 232 the authors report that their findings are consistent high income country findings. However with such a small sample of caregivers in this study, I would be concerned with this statement.

12. In the conclusion in line 297, the authors speak about peer group intervention. The community health workers are form the same community but not peers in the working efinition.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr5

Review: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR5

Reviewed by: Upasana Baruah

This is an interesting manuscript that describes a locally developed caregiver intervention and its effectiveness in improving mental health and social participation among community participants in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. Overall, the manuscript is easy to read, well written, and highlights the significance of a community-based group intervention program and has important implications for public mental health. However, there are certain queries and issues in the manuscript that need to be addressed. Some of the queries, concerns/comments are mentioned below:

Title: Though primarily developed for caregivers of persons with disability, in the current study only 20% of the participants were actual caregivers. In this context, how do the authors justify the intervention as a “caregiver” group intervention

Impact Statement and Abstract:

Both in the impact statement and the abstract, it should be mentioned that the participants were largely non-caregivers, as it is currently not clear.

Background:

Line 71-73 seems incomplete and needs to be revised.

Line 79-80: caregiver burden and mental health impact have been studied extensively in caregivers of persons with dementia in India - relevant citations can be included.

Methods:

Has the development process of Nae Ummed been described elsewhere? If yes, it would be useful to provide a reference for the same in the manuscript

Though the reference for the structured curriculum has been provided by the authors, it would be helpful if a brief description/summary of the sessions/modules can be provided (in a table or in text). It would also be helpful to understand how the topics were adapted for non-caregivers as the modules were primarily developed for caregivers.

Line 141-143: in the results it is mentioned that 62% of the participants had no formal education. So, were any alternatives provided for the pamphlets on self-care? Or were the pamphlets with visual descriptions?

Line 144-147: who provided training to the CHWs? And what were their credentials?

Line 157-158: operational definition of people with disability can be provided with a mention of the types of disabilities included.

Line 160: Were there any specific criteria for caregivers with respect to duration of caregiving, caregiving role, etc.?

Line 166: the process of obtaining verbal informed consent can be elaborated for clarity for the readers.

Data collection: how many health workers were involved in the study – as group facilitators and in the data collection and recruitment process?

Trial registration: why was the study registered in the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry when it was conducted in India?

Results:

In the socio-demographic profile, the addition of the employment status and average income/economic status of the participants would provide a holistic description of the target population.

Line 211: who are these “others” and were they clubbed with non-CGs in the analysis?

Line 212: Was the data checked for normality?

Discussion:

The authors discuss the results primarily in the context of caregiver support group interventions, however, as the participants were mostly non-caregivers, the results can be discussed in terms of community mental health interventions.

The strengths of the study/methods (viz., low dropout rate, etc.) can be emphasized

Was there any qualitative feedback collected from the participants? During the sessions, did the participants who were caregivers have questions about how to manage illness-specific issues of the persons they were caring for and how were these handled?

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr6

Recommendation: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR6

Editor: Vandana Gopikumar1

No accompanying comment.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr7

Decision: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R0/PR7

Editor: Dixon Chibanda1

No accompanying comment.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr8

Author comment: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R1/PR8

Kaaren Mathias 1

COVER LETTER

Dear Editors of Global mental health,

We have made revisions to this paper based on the thoughtful feedback from all four reviewers. We believe this paper is now in a strong shape for publication. We underline what we stated at the time of submission that this is an important contribution to the evidence of global mental health for the following reasons:

First, this paper profiles the pilot implementation of a new intervention developed for North India, that seeks to strengthen the mental health and social participation of people who are mentally distressed in urban North India including carers. This acknowledges that the centrality of carers in mental health care systems in low income settings such as urban North India. This study evaluates a pragmatic intervention seeking to address the mental health needs of caregivers. As an intervention developed and implemented by a civil society organisation, this evaluates a pilot programme with a pragmatic and uncontrolled research design.

Secondly, an important strength of this study, is that is demonstrates significant improvements in pre-post measures for mental health and social participation for people with mental distress in a real-world setting using pragmatic implementation. The low-budget implementation by a civil society organisation using a group platform during the period of the COVID aftermath increases the scalability, generalisability and relevance of the positive findings.

Thirdly, we are a multidisciplinary, multi-country authorship team who are truly global in nature. PP and AGS are respectively managerial and social work -based mental health practitioners based in a non-profit organisation in North India; KM works and researches in community mental health in New Zealand and India, NG and CB are public health physicians working between Australia and India and JL is a physician who volunteered to support with analysis who works in New Zealand and Australia.

We believe this paper fits Global mental health well, and offers a solid account of the pilot evaluation of the effectiveness of a novel caregiver group intervention.

Thank you for your consideration of this paper for publication,

Kaaren Mathias – on behalf of the author team

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr9

Review: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R1/PR9

Reviewed by: Sridhar Vaitheswaran1

Despite some weaknesses in the methods, I think this is an important study that needs to be published.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr10

Review: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R1/PR10

Reviewed by: Upasana Baruah

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the concerns and queries I had. They have incorporated the suggestions given.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr11

Recommendation: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R1/PR11

Editor: Vandana Gopikumar1

No accompanying comment.

Glob Ment Health (Camb). doi: 10.1017/gmh.2023.38.pr12

Decision: Does the Nae Umeed group intervention improve mental health and social participation? A pre–post study in Uttarakhand, India — R1/PR12

Editor: Dixon Chibanda1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The complete data are not publicly available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants.

    Articles from Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES