Dataset Information

A systematic review of validated screening tools for anxiety disorders and PTSD in low to middle income countries.

ABSTRACT: Background: Anxiety 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.

Methods: MEDLINE, 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.

Results: Of 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%).

Conclusion: Use 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 registration: PROSPERO registry number CRD42019121794 .

SUBMITTER: Mughal AY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7325104 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of validated screening tools for anxiety disorders and PTSD in low to middle income countries.

Mughal Anisa Y AY Devadas Jackson J Ardman Eric E Levis Brooke B Go Vivian F VF Gaynes Bradley N BN

BMC psychiatry 20200630 1

<h4>Background</h4>Anxiety 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.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and PsychIN ...[more]

PMID: 32605551

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review, identify and report the screening tools used for early identification of developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesFour bibliographic databases: Medline (1946 to 13 July 2020), Embase (1974 to 13 July 2020), Scopus (1823 to 11 July 2020) and PsycINFO (1987 to July week 1 2020).Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed original articles published in English addressing validated culturally sensitive developmental screening tools among children aged <5 years were included in this review.Data extraction and synthesisOne author (CK, medical librarian) developed the search strategy. Three authors conducted the database search (phase I: CK; phase II: IJ and MKI). Three authors (TF, IJ and MKI) independently screened the title and abstracts. TF, MKI and GK independently performed the full-text review of the screened articles. During each step of the study selection process, disagreements were resolved through discussion. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was used to guide the systematic review. Data extraction and analysis were performed using MS Excel. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the study findings.ResultsWe identified 3349 articles, of which 18 studies from 10 countries, reporting 16 screening tools, were selected for qualitative synthesis. Six cultural contexts were explored. Twelve general, two motor and two speech-language tools were identified. Seven of them found to be parent-completed ones. Five screening tools (American Speech-Language and Hearing Association, Guide for Monitoring Child Development, Infant Neurological International Battery, New Delhi-Development Screening Questionnaire and Woodside Screening Technique) reported relatively higher sensitivity (82.5%-100%) and specificity (83%-98.93%).ConclusionsLimited number of culturally sensitive developmental screening tools were validated for children aged <5 years in low- and middle-income countries. Revising existing screening tools in different ethnic and cultural settings and subsequent validation with normative value should be a research priority.

Project description:Anxiety disorders are associated with poor maternal and neonatal outcomes. Women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are thought to be disproportionally burdened by these disorders, yet their prevalence is unclear. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of 6 anxiety and related disorders among perinatal women in LMICs. Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until September 7, 2023. Studies conducted in World Bank-defined LMICs and reporting prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, or adjustment disorder during the perinatal period (conception to 12 months post partum) using a validated method were included. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline. Study eligibility, extracted data, and risk of bias of included studies were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled point prevalence. Subgroup analyses were performed by specific anxiety disorder. Main outcomes were prevalence estimates of each anxiety disorder, measured as percentage point estimates and corresponding 95% CIs. At total of 10 617 studies were identified, 203 of which met the inclusion criteria and reported the outcomes of 212 318 women from 33 LMICs. Generalized anxiety disorder was the most reported (184 studies [90.6%]) and most prevalent disorder at 22.2% (95% CI, 19.4%-25.0%; n = 173 553). Posttraumatic stress disorder was the second most prevalent (8.3%; 95% CI, 5.0%-12.2%; 33 studies; n = 22 452). Adjustment disorder was least prevalent (2.9%; 95% CI, 0.0%-14.1%; 2 studies; n = 475). The prevalence of generalized anxiety varied by country income status, with the highest prevalence among lower-middle-income countries (27.6%; 95% CI, 21.6%-33.9%; 59 studies; n = 25 109), followed by low-income (24.0%; 95% CI, 15.3%-33.8%; 11 studies; n = 4961) and upper-middle-income (19.1%; 95% CI, 16.0%-22.4%; 110 studies; n = 138 496) countries. These findings suggest that 1 in 5 women living in LMICs experience anxiety disorders during pregnancy and post partum. Targeted action is needed to reduce this high burden.

Project description:ObjectiveAccurate reporting of birth outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is essential. Mobile health (mHealth) tools have been proposed as a replacement for conventional paper-based registers. mHealth could provide timely data for individual facilities and health departments, as well as capture deliveries outside facilities. This scoping review evaluates which mHealth tools have been reported to birth outcomes in the delivering room in LMICs and documents their reported advantages and drawbacks.DesignA scoping review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for scoping reviews and the mHealth evidence reporting and assessment checklist for evaluating mHealth interventions.Data sourcesPubMed, CINAHL and Global Health were searched for records until 3 February 2022 with no earliest date limit.Eligibility criteriaStudies were included where healthcare workers used mHealth tools in LMICs to record birth outcomes. Exclusion criteria included mHealth not being used at the point of delivery, non-peer reviewed literature and studies not written in English.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Common themes among studies were identified.Results640 records were screened, 21 of which met the inclusion criteria, describing 15 different mHealth tools. We identified six themes: (1) digital tools for labour monitoring (8 studies); (2) digital data collection of specific birth outcomes (3 studies); (3) digital technologies used in community settings (6 studies); (4) attitudes of healthcare workers (10 studies); (5) paper versus electronic data collection (3 studies) and (6) infrastructure, interoperability and sustainability (8 studies).ConclusionSeveral mHealth technologies are reported to have the capability to record birth outcomes at delivery, but none were identified that were designed solely for that purpose. Use of digital delivery registers appears feasible and acceptable to healthcare workers, but definitive evaluations are lacking. Further assessment of the sustainability of technologies and their ability to integrate with existing health information systems is needed.

Project description:ImportanceThe World Health Organization is developing a global strategy to eliminate cervical cancer, with goals for screening prevalence among women aged 30 through 49 years. However, evidence on prevalence levels of cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is sparse.ObjectiveTo determine lifetime cervical cancer screening prevalence in LMICs and its variation across and within world regions and countries.Design, setting, and participantsAnalysis of cross-sectional nationally representative household surveys carried out in 55 LMICs from 2005 through 2018. The median response rate across surveys was 93.8% (range, 64.0%-99.3%). The population-based sample consisted of 1 136 289 women aged 15 years or older, of whom 6885 (0.6%) had missing information for the survey question on cervical cancer screening.ExposuresWorld region, country; countries' economic, social, and health system characteristics; and individuals' sociodemographic characteristics.Main outcomes and measuresSelf-report of having ever had a screening test for cervical cancer.ResultsOf the 1 129 404 women included in the analysis, 542 475 were aged 30 through 49 years. A country-level median of 43.6% (interquartile range [IQR], 13.9%-77.3%; range, 0.3%-97.4%) of women aged 30 through 49 years self-reported to have ever been screened, with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean having the highest prevalence (country-level median, 84.6%; IQR, 65.7%-91.1%; range, 11.7%-97.4%) and those in sub-Saharan Africa the lowest prevalence (country-level median, 16.9%; IQR, 3.7%-31.0%; range, 0.9%-50.8%). There was large variation in the self-reported lifetime prevalence of cervical cancer screening among countries within regions and among countries with similar levels of per capita gross domestic product and total health expenditure. Within countries, women who lived in rural areas, had low educational attainment, or had low household wealth were generally least likely to self-report ever having been screened.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of data collected in 55 low- and middle-income countries from 2005 through 2018, there was wide variation between countries in the self-reported lifetime prevalence of cervical cancer screening. However, the median prevalence was only 44%, supporting the need to increase the rate of screening.

Project description:BackgroundDepression and anxiety contribute to an estimated 74.6 million years of life with disability, and 80% of this burden occurs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is a large gap in care.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically synthesize available evidence and quantify the effectiveness of digital mental health interventions in reducing depression and anxiety in LMICs.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases from the inception date to February 2022. We included randomized controlled trials conducted in LMICs that compared groups that received digital health interventions with controls (active control, treatment as usual, or no intervention) on depression or anxiety symptoms. Two reviewers independently extracted summary data reported in the papers and performed study quality assessments. The outcomes were postintervention measures of depression or anxiety symptoms (Hedges g). We calculated the pooled effect size weighted by inverse variance.ResultsAmong 11,196 retrieved records, we included 80 studies in the meta-analysis (12,070 participants n=6052, 50.14% in the intervention group and n=6018, 49.85% in the control group) and 96 studies in the systematic review. The pooled effect sizes were -0.61 (95% CI -0.78 to -0.44; n=67 comparisons) for depression and -0.73 (95% CI -0.93 to -0.53; n=65 comparisons) for anxiety, indicating that digital health intervention groups had lower postintervention depression and anxiety symptoms compared with controls. Although heterogeneity was considerable (I2=0.94 for depression and 0.95 for anxiety), we found notable sources of variability between the studies, including intervention content, depression or anxiety symptom severity, control type, and age. Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development, and Evaluation showed that the evidence quality was overall high.ConclusionsDigital mental health tools are moderately to highly effective in reducing depression and anxiety symptoms in LMICs. Thus, they could be effective options to close the gap in depression and anxiety care in LMICs, where the usual mental health care is minimal.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021289709; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=289709.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of validated screening tools for anxiety disorders and PTSD in low to middle income countries.

Publications

A systematic review of validated screening tools for anxiety disorders and PTSD in low to middle income countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets