National Mental Health Survey of India 2015-16

NMHS
system, based on a scoring pattern has been
developed as qualitative indicators. These
include mental health policy, plan of action,
service delivery, availability of drugs, budget,
IEC activities, legislation, inter-sectoral
activities and monitoring of programmes.
For each of the states, the score obtained
for individual qualitative indicators were
summed up to arrive at a composite score for
that particular state. These scores were used
to categorize the functional status of mental
health systems that would form the basis for
future assessment of the progress made by the
system. The comprehensive list of quantitative
and qualitative indicators together formed the
score card for each of the states (Box 4). The
detailed steps of indicator development and
computation is provided in annexure 1
4.3.8 State Experts’
Consensus Meeting
The purpose of the state level experts’
consensus meeting was to have a broader
discussion and better documentation of the
mental health systems in the state, to review
the collected information, to examine the
indicators, to suggest changes/modifications
and to agree on areas requiring further data
inputs. The purpose was not to find flaws or
loop holes, but to examine the mental health
systems in a comprehensive, broad based
manner and most importantly to set a baseline
measure. Furthermore, where data for some
domains / components were not available, an
agreement / consensus had to be arrived at to
provide an understanding as a first step.
NIMHANS provided a broad set of
guidelines to conduct the state experts’
consensus meeting. These guidelines
highlighted the purpose, need, methodology,
and the process of developing the SMHSA.
In addition, the document spelt out a stepby-step
action plan for these meetings
that included the methodology / process
of arriving ata consensus. Interestingly,
majority of the states used this opportunity
as a platform to review state level activities
along with identifying action areas.
Based on the guidelines provided by
the NMHS - NIMHANS team, the PI in
consultation with the other members of
the study team / state health authorities
constituted a state level group to review the
information provided in the proforma and to
add any further information available. The
experts (15 to 20 in number) participating
in the consensus meeting varied across
states and often included one or more of the
following: State Principal Health Secretary
or representative, State NHM Director
or representative, State Mental Health
Programme Officer, Member-Secretary of the
State Mental Health Authority, psychiatrist(s)
from both the private and public sectors, public
health specialists, civil society members, legal
advisors, a representative from the state IEC
cell, etc. In addition to the above mentioned
functionaries, the PI was encouraged to invite
any expert who could make a contribution
towards the discussions like the DMHP
Programme Officers, heads or representatives
of other departments, academicians, and
researchers. A representative from the CPH,
NIMHANS attended the state meetings as an
observer and wherever needed facilitated the
conduct of the consensus discussion.
Prior to the state consensus meeting, the
PI made available the latest version of the
complete proforma and the indicators list to
the members. During the consensus meeting
each of the components of the proforma was
discussed in detail before arriving at a decision.
The group deliberated, debated and discussed
issues before reaching consensus on the ten
core parameters of mental health systems.
SMHSA
37