A mentored hands-on training model for scaling up implementation and intervention research in India: "connecting the dots".

Despite the high burden of mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), less than 25% of those in need have access to appropriate services, in part due to a scarcity of locally relevant, evidence-based interventions and models of care. To address this gap, researchers from India and the United States and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) collaboratively developed a "Grantathon" model to provide mentored research training to 24 new principal investigators (PIs). This included a week-long didactic training, a customized web-based data entry/analysis system and a National Coordination Unit (NCU) to support PIs and track process objectives. Outcome objectives were assessed via scholarly output including publications, awards received and subsequent grants that were leveraged. Multiple mentorship strategies including collaborative problem-solving approaches were used to foster single-centre and multicentre research. Flexible, approachable and engaged support from mentors helped PIs overcome research barriers, and the NCU addressed local policy and day-to-day challenges through informal monthly review meetings. Bi-annual formal review presentations by all PIs continued through the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling interim results reporting and scientific review, also serving to reinforce accountability. To date, more than 33 publications, 47 scientific presentations, 12 awards, two measurement tools, five intervention manuals and eight research grants have been generated in an open-access environment. The Grantathon is a successful model for building research capacity and improving mental health research in India that could be adopted for use in other LMICs.

From Office-Based Treatment to Telehealth: Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Patient Participation in a Psychiatric Intensive Outpatient Program with a Large Transdiagnostic Sample.

Introduction: Patient participation and clinical outcomes of a precoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) office-based transdiagnostic psychiatric intensive outpatient program (IOP) were compared with those of telehealth IOP during COVID-19. Materials and Methods: Weeks of enrollment, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) assessments, and sociodemographic and clinical factors (including group track and diagnosis) were collected during pre-COVID-19 (n = 191) and during COVID-19 (n = 200). Continuous and categorical measures of GAD-7 and PHQ-9 were analyzed; potential sociodemographic and clinical covariates to scores were also explored. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in participation between time periods. Associations were observed between PHQ-9/GAD-7 score improvement and number of assessments. Significant score reductions occurred in both periods, and differences in change scores were not significant. Sociodemographic and clinical factors were not significantly different between time periods. Patients with commercial insurance had significantly higher improvement in both mean and categorical PHQ-9 scores (t = 2.77, p = 0.006; χ2 = 10.47, df = 1, p = 0.001) and GAD-7 scores (t = 2.29, p = 0.023; χ2 = 8.58, df = 1, p = 0.003) than those with public insurance. Patients with anxiety disorders had significantly greater improvements (F = 4.49, p = 0.004; χ2 = 9.15, df = 3, p = 0.027) in GAD-7 during COVID-19. Discussion: Significant improvements in PHQ-9/GAD-7 scores and measures of participation were not significantly different between telehealth and office-based IOP, nor were they greatly influenced by clinical or sociodemographic factors. Further study is needed of possible care disparities for publicly insured patients. Conclusion: Despite some limitations, telehealth IOP appears to be a clinically appropriate option for a diverse sociodemographic and diagnostically heterogeneous psychiatric population.