Grand Challenges in Global Mental Health

Collins et al. (2011) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

mental, neurological and substance-use (MNS) disorders

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?


Why was it conducted at all?

The absence of cures, and the dearth of preventive interventions for MNS disor ders, in part reflects a limited understanding of the brain and its molecular and cellular mechanisms. Where there are effective treat ments, they are frequently not available to those in greatest need. In 83% of low-income countries, there are no anti-Parkinsonian treatments in primary care; in 25% there are no anti-epileptic drugs6. Unequal distri bution of human resources - between and within countries - further weakens access: the World Health Organization's European region has 200 times as many psychiatrists as in Africa. Across all countries, investment in fundamental research into preventing and treating MNS disorders is disproportionately low relative to the disease burden.

What was the objective?

to identify priorities for research in the next 10 years that will make an impact on the lives of people living with MNS disorders

What was the outcome?

a list of 25 research topics

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?


How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: Delphi round 1: participants were asked: What are the grand challenges in global mental health?, participants were also asked to list up to five areas they considered to be top priorities, 1565 challenges submitted. Step 2: data processing: advisory board shortened list to 154 unique challenges. Step 3: Delphi round 2: participants were asked to select top 40. Step 4: Delphi round 3: participants were asked to rate each of the 40 challenges

Which stakeholders took part?

Researchers, advocates, program implementers, clinicians. 422 participants.

How were stakeholders recruited?

The advisory board nominated 594 researchers, advocates, program implementers and clinicians.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.