The Community Action Program Works to Improve Mental Health at the District Level: The Evaluation of the Community Action Program in Districts of Iran
Evaluation of the Community Action Package
Objective: Three categories of interventions are considered for reducing the prevalence of mental disorders in Iran: mental health promotion, increasing mental health and social service utilization and controlling mental health risk factors. In this regard, we designed a community action program in a national plan to provide comprehensive social and mental health services (SERAJ) that were implemented as a pilot in three districts of Iran: Bardasir, Oslo, and Quchan. In this study, we have reviewed the results of this pilot project.
Method: This study was conducted based on the collaborative evaluation model; first, the program was described and the evaluation indicators of each component of the program were determined. Stakeholders were determined; also, data were collected through literature review, semi-structured interview, and focused group discussion and were analyzed by thematic analysis methods.
Results: The community action program consists of four components: A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the departments of the districts, People’s Participation House (PPH), Self-reliance Unit (SRU), and actions taken for stigma reduction. A total of 48% of the actions set out in the three MoU of three districts have been executed. The PPH was formed in all three districts. A total of 816 social referrals were admitted to SRU for which a self-reliance process has been initiated. Moreover, 47% of referrals have received services and at least 10 messages for stigma reduction and promoting mental disorders have been sent from different sources at the district level.
Conclusion: Strengthening vertical cooperation between the national and provincial levels is essential for the full implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and self-reliance processes. Referring individuals for receiving social support with collaboration between the primary and secondary programs reported to be successful, but feedback to the primary and secondary levels which provides basic and specialized services, is not transparent. Therefore, we suggest an electronic system as an option to solve this problem. The careful selection of representatives of the people's network and empowerment of PPH and directors of the district on community action skills are essential. The experiences of the governors and chairs of health networks of the three districts should be presented at a national conference.
2. Organization WH. The World Health Report 2001: Mental health: new understanding, new hope: World Health Organization; 2001.
3. Cardoza VG, Ackerly WC, Leighton AHJCMHJ. Improving mental health through community action. 1975;11 (2) :215-27.
4. Peck HB, Roman M, Kaplan SR. Community action programs and the comprehensive mental health center. Psychiatr Res Rep Am Psychiatr Assoc. 1967;21:103-21.
5. Darlington Y, Feeney JAJC, Review YS. Collaboration between mental health and child protection services: Professionals' perceptions of best practice. 2008;30 (2) :187-98.
6. Wessells M. global mental health. 2016.
7. Organization WH. World health report 2001: mental health. 2001.
8. Damari B, Moghaddam AV. Social health service packages, a model for urban heath system interventions. Payesh (Health Monitor). 2013;12 (3) :297-304.
9. Montazeri A, Riazi-Isfahani S, Damari B. How to integrate social care services into primary health care? An experience from Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016;30:408.
10. Mitchell PF, Pattison PE. Organizational culture, intersectoral collaboration and mental health care. J Health Organ Manag. 2012;26 (1) :32-59.
11. Delaney FGJHPI. Muddling through the middle ground: theoretical concerns in intersectoral collaboration and health promotion. 1994;9 (3) :217-25.
12. Ndumbe-Eyoh S, Moffatt H. Intersectoral action for health equity: a rapid systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1056.
13. Chircop A, Bassett R, Taylor EJCPH. Evidence on how to practice intersectoral collaboration for health equity: a scoping review. 2015;25 (2) :178-91.
14. Shankardass K, Solar O, Murphy K, Greaves L, O’Campo PJIjoph. A scoping review of intersectoral action for health equity involving governments. 2012;57 (1) :25-33.
15. De Freitas C, Martin GJSs, medicine. Inclusive public participation in health: policy, practice and theoretical contributions to promote the involvement of marginalised groups in healthcare. 2015;135:31-9.
16. Contandriopoulos D. A sociological perspective on public participation in health care. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58 (2) :321-30.
17. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, Evoy B, Abelson J. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91 (3) :219-28.
18. Cao M, Zhang Q. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management. 2011;29 (3) :163-80.
19. Robinson JC, Casalino LP. Vertical integration and organizational networks in health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 1996;15 (1) :7-22.
20. Provan KG, Isett KR, Milward HB. Cooperation and compromise: A network response to conflicting institutional pressures in community mental health. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly. 2004;33 (3) :489-514.
21. World Health Organization. Mental health and development: targeting people with mental health conditions as a vulnerable group. InMental health and development: targeting people with mental health conditions as a vulnerable group 2010 (pp. 74-74).
22. Snyder KA. A Preference for Self-Reliance. Beyond the Typical Conceptualization of Social Support in Close Relationships: Can Less be More? : Columbia University; 2017.
23. Rudolph L, Caplan J, Mitchell C, Ben-Moshe K, Dillon L. Health in all policies: improving health through intersectoral collaboration. NAM Perspectives. 2013 Sep 18.
24. Barnes M, Newman J, Knops A, Sullivan HJPa. Constituting ‘the public’in public participation. 2003;81 (2) :379-99.
25. Issel LM, Wells R, Williams M. Health Program Planning and Evaluation: A Practical Systematic Approach to Community Health. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2021 Mar 22.
|Issue||Vol 16 No 4 (2021)|
|Community Participation Health Literacy Intersectoral Collaboration Mental Health Social Stigma|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|