Implementation and use of the Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG): A review of the grey literature

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO)’s Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP)-Intervention Guide (IG) aims to integrate mental health into primary care/community-based settings by equipping non-specialists with tools, training, and support to deliver evidence-based interventions. With the growing popularity of the mhGAP-IG, a systematic review was conducted by Keynejad and colleagues (2018) to identify articles reporting on evidence generated from the implementation and evaluation of the mhGAP-IG in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Their review identified peer-reviewed articles and one thesis. In this current review, we report on the implementation and use of mhGAP-IG documented in the grey literature, an important and accessible channel to share information for LMICs. METHODS: We searched grey literature databases for documents that reported on the implementation and/or use of the mhGAP-IG or its training modules: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, the Mental Health Innovation Network (MHIN) database, the WHO website, the mhGAP Newsletter, and the first 10 pages of Google search results. Authors developed and adapted search strategies according to database characteristics. Database searches were completed by November 12, 2019. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-one (n = 151) documents were included in our review. We report on where the mhGAP-IG has been implemented and/or used worldwide. Many types of personnel were trained in the mhGAP-IG and/or used it in clinical practice. Contextual barriers and facilitators may influence the implementation and/or use of the mhGAP-IG, and we organized these according to structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation characteristics. Some information on evaluating the mhGAP-IG was documented in the grey literature. Outcomes included: feasibility of implementing and/or using the mhGAP-IG, its coverage, its impact on the capacities of personnel, patient outcomes, and policies, as well as program costs. CONCLUSIONS: This review of the grey literature provides rich experiential knowledge that can complement information documented in the peer-reviewed literature. It is important for researchers conducting reviews on global health/global mental health topics to consider incorporating grey literature search strategies in their reviews. This may not only help to acknowledge the research/dissemination realities of many LMICs, but also to generate findings that reinforce and/or expand those documented in peer-reviewed articles.