FreshRSS

🔒
☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Implementation of the community health system innovation project in three low- and middle-income countries: COHESION-I study protocol

Por: Lazo-Porras · M. · Bernabe-Ortiz · A. · Damasceno · A. · Sharma · S. K. · Praveen · D. · Mayo-Puchoc · N. · Aya Pastrana · N. · Bazan Maccera · M. · Chauque · A. · Cahuana-Hurtado · L. · Cardenas · M. K. · Gautam · U. · Khanal · V. K. · Jessen · N. · Mugabe · N. · Pereyra · R. · Pesant — Diciembre 31st 2025 at 18:10
Background

The COmmunity HEalth System InnovatiON (COHESION) project (2016–2019) was a 4-year collaboration between research teams from Mozambique, Nepal, Peru and Switzerland. It conducted formative health system research using tracer chronic conditions, non-communicable diseases (diabetes and hypertension) and one neglected tropical disease per country (schistosomiasis in Mozambique, leprosy in Nepal and neurocysticercosis in Peru).

Findings guided the co-creation of interventions to improve diagnosis and management through a participatory approach with communities, primary healthcare workers and regional health authorities.

As a continuation of this effort, the research team initiated the COHESION Implementation project (COHESION-I) with two objectives: (1) implement and evaluate the context-specific co-created interventions in Mozambique, Nepal and Peru (Component 1) and (2) adapt the COHESION approach to India, a country that did not benefit from a formative phase previously (Component 2). This protocol manuscript focuses on Component 1.

Methods and analysis

A mixed-methods, pre–post quasi-experimental design will be used, including quantitative, qualitative, economic and process evaluations. Each country will have three arms: (1) co-created and co-designed interventions; (2) only co-designed intervention and (3) the usual care arm. Data will be collected longitudinally over 18 months to assess the effect of the interventions. The main outcomes include patient satisfaction (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form), health system responsiveness (WHO responsiveness domains) and quality of life (EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels). The qualitative evaluation will explore how satisfaction is perceived among service users with chronic conditions and healthcare workers. Other outcomes per type of evaluation will be considered such as perceived value of health services, cost estimation and acceptability of the intervention components, among others.

Ethics and dissemination

Approvals were obtained from Ethics Committees of Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru), Universidade Eduardo Mondale (Mozambique) and Nepal Health Research Council (Nepal). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences.

Trial registration number

NCT06989502.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Effect of nature-based health interventions for individuals diagnosed with anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress--a systematic review and meta-analysis

Por: Jessen · N. H. · Lovschall · C. · Skejo · S. D. · Madsen · L. S. S. · Corazon · S. S. · Maribo · T. · Poulsen · D. V. — Julio 24th 2025 at 09:15
Objectives

The use of natural environments and nature activities as elements in the treatment and rehabilitation of mental health challenges is gaining international attention. The objective of the present review was to summarise the knowledge on the effects of nature-based health interventions (NBHIs) targeting individuals diagnosed with anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analyses. The quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the SIGN and GRADE.

Data sources

Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

(1) NBHIs, (2) Individuals with a diagnosis of mild to moderate anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress, (3) Age of participating individuals: 18–84 years, (4) Study designs: randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case-series studies and (5) Publication date: 2000–2024.

Data extraction and synthesis

Screening, quality appraisal and certainty of evidence, assessed using SIGN and GRADE, were performed by two independent reviewers, except title screening. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect models.

Results

Nineteen articles were included, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses. The articles showed substantial variation in design, interventions, settings and risk of bias, limiting the certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Participating in NBHIs led to a small to large effect in mental health with standardised mean changes of –0.80 (95% CI= (–1.56; –0.04)), –0.87 (95% CI= (–1.18; –0.56)), –0.32 (95% CI= (–0.74; 0.09)) and 0.58 (95% CI= (0.39; 0.77)) for anxiety, depression and stress scores and overall mental health scores, respectively.

Conclusions

This is the first systematic review examining the effect of NBHIs exclusively on individuals diagnosed with anxiety, depression and/or experiencing stress. Our findings suggest small to large improvements after participating in NBHIs. However, methodological limitations to the included articles necessitate cautious interpretation.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42024516270.

❌