ICMR
arrow  Indicators of Mental Health Books 


the finding that even at initial evaluation the scores on the factor 'family group support' were high and were equal to the post intervention values at Delhi centre. As family support was near optimal even in the pre-intervention stage at this centre, subsequent intervention did not improve it further.

The factors that did not show much change with intervention were those related to social supports and primary group concern. The reason for this finding is not clear and may indicate two aspects. One, that social supports and primary group concern were fairly optimal even at initial contact and hence the intervention did not improve them, or secondly, that the nature and method of intervention did not address these problems sufficiently. Even though the former areas did not show improvement, a related area i.e., social contacts, improved considerably in Delhi and Bangalore, indicating that women do improve in their social network with intervention, though supports from these contacts do not change much. Mental mastery improved only in one centre and that too at one year, while perceived ill health did not improve at all.

To summarize, it appears that subjective well being in general, improves with intervention specially in some of its factors. However, certain areas do .not show change either because the intervention is not targeted at this or changes are slow and hence not obvious at six months and one year. The improvement in the control area in some of the factors may indicate improvement that is independent of intervention and which occurs because of environmental variables such as income, standard of living, geographical problems. Hence, these improved simultaneously in the control and experimental areas. The improvement at Lucknow in the control group can be explained by a difference in methodology in that area. The Anganwadi workers in both experimental and control areas were trained in the scoring of HRC, sensitizing even those in the control areas to possible risk factors and even though intervention was not done actively, by virtue of the knowledge, the workers might have inadvertantly done some intervention, thus accounting for improvement even in the control areas.

The results emphasize the importance of family intervention on improving psychosocial factors and the home environment. Areas like poverty, housekeeping and material characteristics improved at most centres, emphasising the effectiveness of such an intervention.

Both the nutritional status and development quotient of children improved with intervention. The nutritional status improved both at six months and


<< Back
 | Index | Next >>