Dataset Information

Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations. METHODS:A systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools. RESULTS:153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS:Of the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed.

SUBMITTER: Ali GC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4911088 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Ali Gemma-Claire GC Ryan Grace G De Silva Mary J MJ

PloS one 20160616 6

<h4>Background</h4>A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs acros ...[more]

PMID: 27310297

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) contribute significantly to disability adjusted life years in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). Screening has been proposed to improve identification and management of these disorders, but little is known about the validity of screening tools for these disorders. We conducted a systematic review of validated screening tools for detecting anxiety and PTSD in LMICs.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and PsychINFO were searched (inception-April 22, 2020). Eligible studies (1) screened for anxiety disorders and/or PTSD; (2) reported sensitivity and specificity for a given cut-off value; (3) were conducted in LMICs; and (4) compared screening results to diagnostic classifications based on a reference standard. Screening tool, cut-off, disorder, region, country, and clinical population were extracted for each study, and we assessed study quality. Accuracy results were organized based on screening tool, cut-off, and specific disorder. Accuracy estimates for the same cut-off for the same screening tool and disorder were combined via meta-analysis.ResultsOf 6322 unique citations identified, 58 articles including 77 screening tools were included. There were 46, 19 and 12 validations for anxiety, PTSD, and combined depression and anxiety, respectively. Continentally, Asia had the most validations (35). Regionally, South Asia (11) had the most validations, followed by South Africa (10) and West Asia (9). The Kessler-10 (7) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale (GAD-7) (6) were the most commonly validated tools for anxiety disorders, while the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (3) and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (3) were the most commonly validated tools for PTSD. Most studies (29) had the lowest quality rating (unblinded). Due to incomplete reporting, we could meta-analyze results from only two studies, which involved the GAD-7 (cut-off ≥10, pooled sensitivity = 76%, pooled specificity = 64%).ConclusionUse of brief screening instruments can bring much needed attention and research opportunities to various at-risk LMIC populations. However, many have been validated in inadequately designed studies, precluding any general recommendation for specific tools in LMICs. Locally validated screening tools for anxiety and PTSD need further evaluation in well-designed studies to assess whether they can improve the detection and management of these common disorders.Trial registrationPROSPERO registry number CRD42019121794 .

Project description:BackgroundMental health has long fallen behind physical health in attention, funding, and action-especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). It has been conspicuously absent from global reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health (MNCAH) programming, despite increasing awareness of the intergenerational impact of common perinatal mental disorders (CPMDs). However, the universal health coverage (UHC) movement and COVID-19 have brought mental health to the forefront, and the MNCAH community is looking to understand how to provide women effective, sustainable care at scale. To address this, MOMENTUM Country and Global Leadership (MCGL) commissioned a landscape analysis in December 2020 to assess the state of CPMDs and identify what is being done to address the burden in LMICs.MethodsThe landscape analysis (LA) used a multitiered approach. First, reviewers chose a scoping review methodology to search literature in PubMed, Google Scholar, PsychInfo, and Scopus. Titles and abstracts were reviewed before a multidisciplinary team conducted data extraction and analysis on relevant articles. Second, 44 key informant interviews and two focus group discussions were conducted with mental health, MNCAH, humanitarian, nutrition, gender-based violence (GBV), advocacy, and implementation research experts. Finally, reviewers completed a document analysis of relevant mental health policies from 19 countries.ResultsThe LA identified risk factors for CPMDs, maternal mental health interventions and implementation strategies, and remaining knowledge gaps. Risk factors included social determinants, such as economic or gender inequality, and individual experiences, such as stillbirth. Core components identified in successful perinatal mental health (PMH) interventions at community level included stepped care, detailed context assessments, task-sharing models, and talk therapy; at health facility level, they included pre-service training on mental health, trained and supervised providers, referral and assessment processes, mental health support for providers, provision of respectful care, and linkages with GBV services. Yet, significant gaps remain in understanding how to address CPMDs.ConclusionThese findings illuminate an urgent need to provide CPMD prevention and care to women in LMICs. The time is long overdue to take perinatal mental health seriously. Efforts should strive to generate better evidence while implementing successful approaches to help millions of women "suffering in silence."

Project description:Common mental disorders (CMDs) constitute a major public health and economic burden on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic reviews of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs are limited. This systematic review examines methods, reports findings and appraises the quality of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs. We searched a range of bibliographic databases (including PubMed, EconLit, APA-PsycINFO and Cochrane library) and the African Journals Online (AJoL) and Google Scholar platforms. We used a pre-populated template to extract data and the Drummond & Jefferson checklist for quality appraisal. We present results as a narrative synthesis. The review included 26 studies, mostly from Asia (12) and Africa (9). The majority were cost-effectiveness analyses (12), some were cost-utility analyses (5), with one cost-benefit analysis or combinations of economic evaluations (8). Most interventions were considered either cost-effective or potentially cost-effective (22), with 3 interventions being not cost-effective. Limitations were noted regarding appropriateness of conclusions drawn on cost-effectiveness, the use of cost-effectiveness thresholds and application of 'societal' incremental cost-effectiveness ratios to reflect value for money (VfM) of treatments. Non-specialist health workers (NSHWs) delivered most of the treatments (16) for low-cost delivery at scale, and costs should reflect the true opportunity cost of NSHWs' time to support the development of a sustainable cadre of health care providers. There is a 4-fold increase in economic evaluations of CMD psychological treatments in the last decade over the previous one. Yet, findings from this review highlight the need for better application of economic evaluation methodology to support resource allocation towards the World Health Organization recommended first-line treatments of CMDs. We suggest impact inventories to capture societal economic gains and propose a VfM assessment framework to guide researchers in evaluating cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundCommon mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.ObjectiveThe proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.MethodsWe will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.ResultsThe results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.ConclusionThe fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020185277.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with common mental disorders (CMDs) who also experience intimate partner violence is scarce. We aimed to test our hypothesis that exposure to intimate partner violence would reduce intervention effectiveness for CMDs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, ScieELO, Cochrane, PubMed databases, trials registries, 3ie, Google Scholar, and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and Aug 16, 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for CMDs in LMICs which measured intimate partner violence were included, without language or date restrictions. We approached study authors to obtain unpublished aggregate subgroup data for women who did and did not report intimate partner violence. We did separate random-effects meta-analyses for anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychological distress outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials was synthesised as differences between standardised mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, comparing women who did and who did not report intimate partner violence via random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42017078611.FindingsOf 8122 records identified, 21 were eligible and data were available for 15 RCTs, all of which had a low to moderate risk of overall bias. Anxiety (five interventions, 728 participants) showed a greater response to intervention among women reporting intimate partner violence than among those who did not (difference in standardised mean differences [dSMD] 0·31, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·57, I2=49·4%). No differences in response to intervention were seen in women reporting intimate partner violence for PTSD (eight interventions, n=1436; dSMD 0·14, 95% CI -0·06 to 0·33, I2=42·6%), depression (12 interventions, n=2940; 0·10, -0·04 to 0·25, I2=49·3%), and psychological distress (four interventions, n=1591; 0·07, -0·05 to 0·18, I2=0·0%, p=0·681).InterpretationPsychological interventions treat anxiety effectively in women with current or recent intimate partner violence exposure in LMICs when delivered by appropriately trained and supervised health-care staff, even when not tailored for this population or targeting intimate partner violence directly. Future research should investigate whether adapting evidence-based psychological interventions for CMDs to address intimate partner violence enhances their acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness in LMICs.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research ASSET and King's IoPPN Clinician Investigator Scholarship.

Project description:BackgroundExisting implementation measures developed in high-income countries may have limited appropriateness for use within low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In response, researchers at Johns Hopkins University began developing the Mental Health Implementation Science Tools (mhIST) in 2013 to assess priority implementation determinants and outcomes across four key stakeholder groups-consumers, providers, organization leaders, and policy makers-with dedicated versions of scales for each group. These were field tested and refined in several contexts, and criterion validity was established in Ukraine. The Consumer and Provider mhIST have since grown in popularity in mental health research, outpacing psychometric evaluation. Our objective was to establish the cross-context psychometric properties of these versions and inform future revisions.MethodsWe compiled secondary data from seven studies across six LMIC-Colombia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Thailand, Ukraine, and Zambia-to evaluate the psychometric performance of the Consumer and Provider mhIST. We used exploratory factor analysis to identify dimensionality, factor structure, and item loadings for each scale within each stakeholder version. We also used alignment analysis (i.e., multi-group confirmatory factor analysis) to estimate measurement invariance and differential item functioning of the Consumer scales across the six countries.ResultsAll but one scale within the Provider and Consumer versions had Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.8. Exploratory factor analysis indicated most scales were multidimensional, with factors generally aligning with a priori subscales for the Provider version; the Consumer version has no predefined subscales. Alignment analysis of the Consumer mhIST indicated a range of measurement invariance for scales across settings (R2 0.46 to 0.77). Several items were identified for potential revision due to participant nonresponse or low or cross- factor loadings. We found only one item, which asked consumers whether their intervention provider was available when needed, to have differential item functioning in both intercept and loading.ConclusionWe provide evidence that the Consumer and Provider versions of the mhIST are internally valid and reliable across diverse contexts and stakeholder groups for mental health research in LMIC. We recommend the instrument be revised based on these analyses and future research examine instrument utility by linking measurement to other outcomes of interest.

Dataset Information

Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets