Overview
Latika is currently working as a systematic reviewer within the Exeter HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre aiming to improve the organisation and delivery of health services within the UK.
Prior to this role, she pursued her PhD within the Department of Psychology at the University of Exeter. She was awarded her PhD in 2020, determining the influence of British and Indian culture on perfectionism, achievement, control and beliefs of suppression that increase the risk of disordered eating behaviours. During this time she also worked as a teaching and research assistant. While she is particularly interested in the area of evidence synthesis and has worked on several systematic reviews, she is also experienced in conducting mixed methods (primary qualitative and quantitative) research.
She trained as a mental health professional in India and has previously worked across various public and private mental health institution in Mumbai and New Delhi, India.
Qualifications
- PhD in Psychology (University of Exeter, 2020) - Unpacking the Influence of Culture: Perfectionism, Achievement, Control and Beliefs of Suppression as predisposing factors of Specific Disordered Eating Behaviours
- MA in Clinical Psychology (SNDT Women’s University, Mumbai, India, 2016)
- BA (Hons) in Applied Psychology (Amity University, Noida, India, 2014)
Research
Research interests
Latika has an ongoing interest in research aiming to understand and improve mental health at a global level across different cultures. She is interested in prevention and early intervention of common mental health problems and eating disorders specifically in low and middle income countries.
Within the Exeter HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre she is leading a systematic review of evidence relating to the implementation of different strengths based models of adult social work practice. Her work involves the delivery of all review stages, from application of screening criteria, quality appraisal, synthesis of results and write up of reports for publication.
Her PhD thesis focussed on examining cross-cultural and culture-specific predisposing factors of disordered eating behaviours, amongst young adults, in Indian and UK contexts. This was a mixed methods research, where she conducted a full scales systematic review/meta-analysis, and various qualitative and quantitative (survey and experiment) studies.
Research projects
2020 - Leading on the systematic review of evidence related to different models of social work practice
2019 – Involved in development of an online course of Postnatal Depression Management on FutureLearn Platform.
2018 – Involved in a systematic review examining cost-effectiveness of treatments used in treating Personality Disorders.
Publications
Key publications | Publications by category | Publications by year
Publications by category
Journal articles
Price A, Ahuja L, Bramwell C, Briscoe S, Shaw E, Nunns M, O'Rourke G, Baron S, Anderson R (2020). Research evidence on different strengths-based approaches within adult social work: a systematic review.
HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre Topic Report (peer-reviewed), 1-157.
Abstract:
Research evidence on different strengths-based approaches within adult social work: a systematic review
Background
A ‘strengths-based approach’ focusses on peoples’ goals and resources rather than their problems. Social care professionals and organisations are striving to practise in a strengths-based way and since the Care Act of 2014 it is an even stronger requirement. However, there are challenges in implementing strengths-based approaches into practise, and uncertainty remains about their effectiveness.
Objective
To summarise research evidence on the effectiveness and the implementation of different strengths-based approaches within adult social work in the UK.
Data sources
We searched seven databases: MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, HMIC, CINAHL, ASSIA and the Campbell Library. Supplementary web searches were conducted. No date or language limits were used.
Review methods
Eligible studies were about adults (≥18 years) being supported or assessed by social workers; or about initiatives involving adult social care teams. For the effectiveness question, outcomes could be directly related to people’s individual outcomes or outcomes at the level of families or communities. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group’s Risk of Bias Tool was chosen to appraise the quality of effectiveness studies, and qualitative implementation studies were assessed using the Wallace criteria. Findings were tabulated and analysed using framework synthesis, based on the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Studies that were not synthesised were summarised descriptively.
Findings
Of 5,030 studies screened, none met our inclusion criteria for the effectiveness question. Fifteen qualitative or mixed methods studies met the criteria for the implementation question, six of which were assessed as ‘good quality’. Seven examined Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) and the remaining eight studies examined Local Area Coordination, Solution Focused Therapy, Family Group Conferencing, Asset-based Community Development, Strengths-based with Relationship-based Approach, Asset-based approaches, and Motivational Interviewing.
Seven studies on Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP), were synthesised into the following themes of implementation factors: 1) MSP as an intervention: seen as initially demanding but with long-term advantages; required significant practice change; needed tailoring to local settings. 2) Culture and Settings: required broad cultural changes; ‘outward facing’ and smaller/specialist councils tended to find this easier. 3) Individual characteristics: enhancing the knowledge, skills and confidence of stakeholders in MSP facilitated delivery; depended on practitioner skill in engaging people being supported; and people’s willingness to engage. 4) Embedding and sustaining MSP: depended on strong leadership and active engagement at all levels; required extensive planning and shaping of safeguarding practice that was user-focussed.
For the remaining eight studies of seven strengths-based approaches, we provide a summary of their findings.
Limitations
Our findings are mainly limited by the lack of available evidence in the UK. Higher quality studies may have revealed richer explanations of implementation.
Conclusions
There is a lack of good quality research evidence evaluating the effectiveness or implementation of strengths-based approaches. The synthesis revealed a wide range of factors that enabled or inhibited successful implementation of Making Safeguarding Personal. These factors may have wider relevance for the implementation of other strengths-based models of social work practice.
Future work
Higher quality evaluations of different strengths-based social work models are required.
Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020166870
Funding
Commissioned by the NIHR HS&DR programme as a review project (NIHR130867) within NIHR HS&DR programme, reference number 16/47/22.
Abstract.
Full text.
Publications by year
2020
Price A, Ahuja L, Bramwell C, Briscoe S, Shaw E, Nunns M, O'Rourke G, Baron S, Anderson R (2020). Research evidence on different strengths-based approaches within adult social work: a systematic review.
HS&DR Evidence Synthesis Centre Topic Report (peer-reviewed), 1-157.
Abstract:
Research evidence on different strengths-based approaches within adult social work: a systematic review
Background
A ‘strengths-based approach’ focusses on peoples’ goals and resources rather than their problems. Social care professionals and organisations are striving to practise in a strengths-based way and since the Care Act of 2014 it is an even stronger requirement. However, there are challenges in implementing strengths-based approaches into practise, and uncertainty remains about their effectiveness.
Objective
To summarise research evidence on the effectiveness and the implementation of different strengths-based approaches within adult social work in the UK.
Data sources
We searched seven databases: MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, HMIC, CINAHL, ASSIA and the Campbell Library. Supplementary web searches were conducted. No date or language limits were used.
Review methods
Eligible studies were about adults (≥18 years) being supported or assessed by social workers; or about initiatives involving adult social care teams. For the effectiveness question, outcomes could be directly related to people’s individual outcomes or outcomes at the level of families or communities. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group’s Risk of Bias Tool was chosen to appraise the quality of effectiveness studies, and qualitative implementation studies were assessed using the Wallace criteria. Findings were tabulated and analysed using framework synthesis, based on the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Studies that were not synthesised were summarised descriptively.
Findings
Of 5,030 studies screened, none met our inclusion criteria for the effectiveness question. Fifteen qualitative or mixed methods studies met the criteria for the implementation question, six of which were assessed as ‘good quality’. Seven examined Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) and the remaining eight studies examined Local Area Coordination, Solution Focused Therapy, Family Group Conferencing, Asset-based Community Development, Strengths-based with Relationship-based Approach, Asset-based approaches, and Motivational Interviewing.
Seven studies on Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP), were synthesised into the following themes of implementation factors: 1) MSP as an intervention: seen as initially demanding but with long-term advantages; required significant practice change; needed tailoring to local settings. 2) Culture and Settings: required broad cultural changes; ‘outward facing’ and smaller/specialist councils tended to find this easier. 3) Individual characteristics: enhancing the knowledge, skills and confidence of stakeholders in MSP facilitated delivery; depended on practitioner skill in engaging people being supported; and people’s willingness to engage. 4) Embedding and sustaining MSP: depended on strong leadership and active engagement at all levels; required extensive planning and shaping of safeguarding practice that was user-focussed.
For the remaining eight studies of seven strengths-based approaches, we provide a summary of their findings.
Limitations
Our findings are mainly limited by the lack of available evidence in the UK. Higher quality studies may have revealed richer explanations of implementation.
Conclusions
There is a lack of good quality research evidence evaluating the effectiveness or implementation of strengths-based approaches. The synthesis revealed a wide range of factors that enabled or inhibited successful implementation of Making Safeguarding Personal. These factors may have wider relevance for the implementation of other strengths-based models of social work practice.
Future work
Higher quality evaluations of different strengths-based social work models are required.
Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020166870
Funding
Commissioned by the NIHR HS&DR programme as a review project (NIHR130867) within NIHR HS&DR programme, reference number 16/47/22.
Abstract.
Full text.
Thompson Coon J, Ahuja L, Price A, Bethel A, Shaw N, Anderson R (2020). What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? Protocol for a systematic evidence map.
Abstract:
What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? Protocol for a systematic evidence map
Evaluating the potential of peer support is receiving abundant attention. This is in response to the increasing financial pressures on NHS, which has led health and social care sector to realise the importance of enabling patients and carers to support themselves more effectively. While there is strong evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer support intervention, it is currently not clear how future research could contribute in better understanding peer support interventions. Also, limited synthesised literature is available on which method of delivery of peer support may be the most effective in achieving positive patient outcomes and in terms of costs incurred. Thus, we aim to systematically map the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support interventions in health and social care. We will conduct the systematic mapping in two stages: in stage 1 we will map systematic reviews of peer support, and in stage 2 we will map randomised controlled trials and health economic studies of peer support interventions that have not been included in recent systematic reviews. We will search several databases: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, HMIC, CINAHL, ASSIA and the Campbell Library. Supplementary web searches will be conducted. Results will be limited to English language studies conducted in high-income countries. Stage 1 search will be date limited from 2015 to-date. The date cut-off for the stage 2 searches will be determined following the completion of stage 1. Eligible studies will be those that involve users of adult services with a defined health and/or social care need accessing peer support delivered in any format (such as face-to-face, online, group, individual, mixed modes etc.), delivered by paid or unpaid peer supporters. Any comparator will be eligible for inclusion and all outcomes are of interest. In stage 1 of the review, high quality, recently published systematic reviews that include comparative studies (RCTs, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials and interrupted time series designs) evaluating the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of peer support interventions will be included. The quality of all systematic reviews identified as eligible at stage 1 will be appraised using the AMSTAR2 quality appraisal tool. At stage 2. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the CHEC list for assessing risk of bias of RCTs and the quality of economic evaluations, respectively. Following data extraction using EPPI Reviewer 4, studies will be entered into an interactive evidence map to visually represent the distribution of evidence across health and social care domains. The map will have multiple layers, such that studies can be identified by population group, type of peer support and outcome. We expect that by conducting this review, we will be able to direct users to existing evidence, funders to existing gaps, and reviewers to pockets of evidence that could be reviewed to help decision making. It may also be possible to use the map to identify research questions that cut across settings, populations and interventions that would help us to understand how to use peer support interventions most effectively.
Abstract.
Full text.
Latika_Ahuja_ Details from cache as at 2021-01-19 17:12:55
Refresh publications
External Engagement and Impact
Committee/panel activities
- Ahuja, L., O’Mahen, H.A., Williams, H., & Frampton, I. Prevalence of eating disorders in India and the risk factors associated with it: A systematic review Presented in Eating disorders group of Devon (2018)
- Ahuja, L., O’Mahen, H.A., Williams, H., & Frampton, I. A qualitative, cross-cultural exploration of culture-specific factors of eating disordered behaviours in India and the UK Presented in BABCP (2018); LEDC (2019); Eating disorders group of Devon (2019)
- Ahuja, L., O’Mahen, H.A., Williams, H., & Frampton, I. Risks factors under the influence: A cross-cultural examination of binge eating behaviours in India and the UK Presented in World Congress of CBT (2019); Eating disorders group of Devon (2019)
Media Coverage
Teaching
Between 2017 and 2019, Latika was a teaching assistant on various undergraduate psychology modules, including clinical psychology, qualitative research methods, personality module and developmental psychology module. She also assessed presentations of final year undergraduate research projects during this time.
