Search results

Background: The global prevalence of mental disorders is high and has an increasing trend. In Nepal, there is dearth in literature on prevalence of mental disorders based on national representative sample. In this study, we aim to present the findings on the prevalence of mental disorders from the pilot study of National Mental Health Survey, Nepal. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 1647 participants aged 13 years and above in three districts of Nepal: Dhanusha, Bhaktapur and Dolakha each representing three ecological regions. Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) standard version 7.0.2 for DSM-5 was used for adults (aged 18 years and above), and kid version of the same tool was used for children (aged 13-17 years) in Nepali language. Separate sets of questions were added for epilepsy and dissociative conversion disorder that were not in the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview tool. Prevalence of assessed mental disorders was reported separately for adults and children.Results: The current prevalence of mental disorders among adults and children were 13.2% and 11.2% respectively. Substance use disorder, dissociative conversion disorder, major depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder and psychotic disorder were common among adults. Similarly, psychotic disorder, agoraphobia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders were common among children. Current suicidality was present among 10.9% adults and 8.7% children.Conclusions: Our findings from the pilot study have given insight into the prevalence of different mental disorders in the survey areas. These findings can be utilized for planning the National Mental Health Survey, Nepal. Keywords: Mental disorders; mental health survey; MINI; Nepal; pilot study.

Background: Emerging researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face many barriers, including inadequacies in funding, international exposure and mentorship. In 2012, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) funded five research hubs aimed at improving the research core for evidence-based mental health interventions, enhancing research skills in global mental health, and providing capacity building (CB) opportunities for early career investigators in LMIC. In this paper emerging researchers contextualize their experiences. Case presentation: Each of the five hubs purposively selected an emerging researcher who had experienced more than one hub-related CB opportunity and actively participated in hub-related clinical trial activities. The five 'voices' were invited to contribute narratives on their professional backgrounds, CB experience, challenges and successes as an emerging mental health researcher, and suggestions for future CB activities. These narratives are presented as case studies. CB activities provided broader learning opportunities for emerging researchers. Benefits included the receipt of research funding, hands-on training and mentorship, as well as exposure to networks and collaborative opportunities on a global scale. To overcome ongoing challenges of access to funding, mentoring, networking and global exposure, the emerging voices recommend making mentorship and training opportunities available to a wider range of emerging mental health researchers. Conclusions: Investing in CB is not enough to ensure sustainability and leave a legacy unless it is accompanied by ongoing mentorship and international exposure. Financial investment in building research capacity, promotion of mentorship and supervision, and international networking are essential to yield well-prepared young investigators in LMIC as experienced by these rising stars. Governments and policymakers should prioritize educational policies to support the continuous development and international engagement of emerging researchers. This can advance strategies to deal with one of most important and costly problems faced by healthcare systems in LMIC: the mental health treatment gap.

Background: Emerging researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) face many barriers, including inadequacies in funding, international exposure and mentorship. In 2012, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) funded five research hubs aimed at improving the research core for evidence-based mental health interventions, enhancing research skills in global mental health, and providing capacity building (CB) opportunities for early career investigators in LMIC. In this paper emerging researchers contextualize their experiences. Case presentation: Each of the five hubs purposively selected an emerging researcher who had experienced more than one hub-related CB opportunity and actively participated in hub-related clinical trial activities. The five 'voices' were invited to contribute narratives on their professional backgrounds, CB experience, challenges and successes as an emerging mental health researcher, and suggestions for future CB activities. These narratives are presented as case studies. CB activities provided broader learning opportunities for emerging researchers. Benefits included the receipt of research funding, hands-on training and mentorship, as well as exposure to networks and collaborative opportunities on a global scale. To overcome ongoing challenges of access to funding, mentoring, networking and global exposure, the emerging voices recommend making mentorship and training opportunities available to a wider range of emerging mental health researchers. Conclusions: Investing in CB is not enough to ensure sustainability and leave a legacy unless it is accompanied by ongoing mentorship and international exposure. Financial investment in building research capacity, promotion of mentorship and supervision, and international networking are essential to yield well-prepared young investigators in LMIC as experienced by these rising stars. Governments and policymakers should prioritize educational policies to support the continuous development and international engagement of emerging researchers. This can advance strategies to deal with one of most important and costly problems faced by healthcare systems in LMIC: the mental health treatment gap.