Dataset Information

Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in low-income and middle-income countries: systematic review and theory of change.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To synthesise the evidence on effectiveness, acceptability and the delivery mechanisms of psychosocial interventions for self-harm in low and middle income countries and to develop a pathway of change specific for self-harm interventions.

Method

Studies reporting one or more patient or implementation outcomes of a psychosocial intervention targeting self-harm and conducted in low- and middle-income countries were included. Taxonomy of treatment components and a theory of change map was created using information from the studies.

Results

We identified thirteen studies including nine randomised controlled trials (RCT), three non-RCTs, and a single experimental case design study. A single study using postcard contact and another using cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) reported a reduction in self-harm attempts. Suicidal ideations were significantly reduced with CBT, volitional help sheets and postcard contact in different studies. Suicide risk assessment, problem solving and self-validation were the most frequently used elements in interventions. Goal-setting was the technique used most commonly. Cultural adaptations of psychotherapies were used in two studies. High attrition rates in psychotherapy trials, limited benefit of the delivery of treatment by non-specialist providers, and variable benefit observed using phone contact as a means to deliver intervention were other important findings.

Conclusion

There were no strong positive findings to draw definitive conclusions. Limited availability and evidence for culturally adapted interventions in self-harm, lack of evaluation of task sharing using evidence based interventions as well as a dearth in evaluation and reporting of various intervention delivery models in low- and middle-income countries were major literature gaps.

SUBMITTER: Aggarwal S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7611648 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMental health and substance use disorders (SUDs) are the world's leading cause of years lived with disability; in low-and-middle income countries (LIMCs), the treatment gap for SUDs is at least 75%. LMICs face significant structural, resource, political, and sociocultural barriers to scale-up SUD services in community settings.AimThis article aims to identify and describe the different types and characteristics of psychosocial community-based SUD interventions in LMICs, and describe what context-specific factors (policy, resource, sociocultural) may influence such interventions in their design, implementation, and/or outcomes.MethodsA narrative literature review was conducted to identify and discuss community-based SUD intervention studies from LMICs. Articles were identified via a search for abstracts on the MEDLINE, Academic Search Complete, and PsycINFO databases. A preliminary synthesis of findings was developed, which included a description of the study characteristics (such as setting, intervention, population, target SUD, etc.); thereafter, a thematic analysis was conducted to describe the themes related to the aims of this review.ResultsFifteen intervention studies were included out of 908 abstracts screened. The characteristics of the included interventions varied considerably. Most of the psychosocial interventions were brief interventions. Approximately two thirds of the interventions were delivered by trained lay healthcare workers. Nearly half of the interventions targeted SUDs in addition to other health priorities (HIV, tuberculosis, intimate partner violence). All of the interventions were implemented in middle income countries (i.e. none in low-income countries). The political, resource, and/or sociocultural factors that influenced the interventions are discussed, although findings were significantly limited across studies.ConclusionDespite this review's limitations, its findings present relevant considerations for future SUD intervention developers, researchers, and decision-makers with regards to planning, implementing and adapting community-based SUD interventions.

Project description:BackgroundThere is consensus that the treatment of schizophrenia should combine anti-psychotic medication and psychosocial interventions in order to address complex social, economic and health needs. It is recommended that family therapy or support; community-based rehabilitation; and/or self-help and support groups should be provided for people with schizophrenia in low and middle-income countries. The effectiveness of community-based psychosocial interventions in these settings is unclear.MethodsStudies evaluating community-based psychosocial interventions for people with schizophrenia were identified through database searching up to April 2016. Randomised controlled trials were included if they compared the intervention group with a control group receiving treatment as usual including medication. Only studies set in low and middle-income countries were included. Random effects meta-analyses were performed separately for each intervention type.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials in five middle-income countries were identified, with a total of 1580 participants. The content of included interventions varied from single-faceted psychoeducational interventions, to multi-component rehabilitation-focused interventions, to case management interventions. A third of the included studies did not incorporate any community involvement in the intervention. The quality of evidence was often low. Amongst the seven studies that reported on symptom severity up to 18 months post intervention, the pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) across all intervention types was 0.95 (95% CI 0.28, 1.61; P 0.005; I 2 = 95%; n = 862), representing a strong effect. A strong effect on symptom severity remained after excluding two studies with a high risk of bias (SMD 0.80; 95% CI 0.07, 1.53; P 0.03; I 2 = 94%; n = 676). Community-based psychosocial interventions may also have beneficial impacts on functioning (SMD 1.12; 95% CI 0.25, 2.00; P 0.01; I 2 = 94%; n = 511) and reducing hospital readmissions (SMD 0.68; 95% CI 0.27, 1.09; P 0.001; I2 = 33%; n = 167).ConclusionThe limited evidence from low and middle-income countries supports the feasibility and effectiveness of community-based psychosocial interventions for schizophrenia, even in the absence of community mobilisation. Community-based psychosocial interventions should therefore be provided in these settings as an adjuvant service in addition to facility-based care for people with schizophrenia.