Dataset Information

Implementation and Effectiveness of Nonspecialist-Delivered Interventions for Perinatal Mental Health in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Task sharing-or training of nonspecialist providers with no formal training in counseling-is an effective strategy to improve access to evidence-based counseling interventions and has the potential to address the burden of perinatal depression and anxiety.

Objectives

To identify the relevant implementation processes (who, what, where, and how) and to assess the effectiveness of counseling interventions delivered by nonspecialist providers for perinatal depression and anxiety in high-income countries.

Data sources

CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase through December 31, 2019. Relevant systematic reviews were also considered.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials of counseling interventions that assessed depression or anxiety after intervention, delivered by a nonspecialist provider for adults, and that targeted perinatal populations in a high-income country were included. Self-help interventions that did not include a provider component were excluded.

Data extraction and synthesis

Four researchers independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles, and 2 independently rated the quality of included studies. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the benefits of the interventions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses reporting guideline was followed.

Main outcomes and measures

For implementation processes, the frequencies represented by a total or percentage were estimated, where the denominator is the total number of eligible trials, unless otherwise indicated. For effectiveness, primary and secondary outcome data of depression, anxiety, or both symptoms were used, with separate analyses for prevention and treatment, stratified by depression or anxiety. Subgroup analyses compared outcome types (anxiety vs depression) and study objectives (treatment vs prevention).

Results

In total, 46 trials (18 321 participants) were included in the systematic review; 44 trials (18 101 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Interventions were implemented across 11 countries, with the majority in Australia, UK, and US. Two-thirds (65%) of counseling interventions were provided by nurses and midwives, lasted a mean of 11.2 weeks (95% CI, 6.4-16.0 weeks), and most were delivered face to face (31 [67.4%]). Only 2 interventions were delivered online. A dearth of information related to important implementation processes, such as supervision, fidelity, and participant sociodemographic characteristics, was observed in many articles. Compared with controls, counseling interventions were associated with lower depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.24 [95% CI, 0.14-0.34]; 43 trials; I2 = 81%) and anxiety scores (SMD, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.11-0.50]; 11 trials; I2 = 80%). Treatment interventions were reported to be effective for both depressive symptoms (SMD, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.17-0.59]; 15 trials; I2 = 69%) and anxiety symptoms (SMD, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.09-0.58]; 6 trials; I2 = 71%). However, heterogeneity was high among the trials included in this analysis.

Conclusions and relevance

This study found evidence in high-income countries indicating that nonspecialist providers may be effective in delivering counseling interventions. Additional studies are needed to assess digital interventions and ensure the reporting of implementation processes to inform the optimal delivery and scale-up of these services.

SUBMITTER: Singla DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7859878 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPerinatal common mental disorders (PCMDs) are a major cause of disability among women. Psychosocial interventions are one approach to reduce the burden of PCMDs. Working with care providers who are not mental health specialists, in the community or in antenatal health care facilities, can expand access to these interventions in low-resource settings. We assessed effects of such interventions compared to usual perinatal care, as well as effects of interventions based on intervention type, delivery method, and timing.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. We searched databases including Embase and the Global Health Library (up to 7 July 2013) for randomized and non-randomized trials of psychosocial interventions delivered by non-specialist mental health care providers in community settings and antenatal health care facilities in low- and middle-income countries. We pooled outcomes from ten trials for 18,738 participants. Interventions led to an overall reduction in PCMDs compared to usual care when using continuous data for PCMD symptomatology (effect size [ES] -0.34; 95% CI -0.53, -0.16) but not binary categorizations for presence or absence of PCMDs (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.35, 1.080 [corrected]. We found a significantly larger ES for psychological interventions (three studies; ES -0.46; 95% CI -0.58, -0.33) than for health promotion interventions (seven studies; ES -0.15; 95% CI -0.27, -0.02). Both individual (five studies; ES -0.18; 95% CI -0.34, -0.01) and group (three studies; ES -0.48; 95% CI -0.85, -0.11) interventions were effective compared to usual care, though delivery method was not associated with ES (meta-regression ? coefficient -0.11; 95% CI -0.36, 0.14). Combined group and individual interventions (based on two studies) had no benefit compared to usual care, nor did interventions restricted to pregnancy (three studies). Intervention timing was not associated with ES (? 0.16; 95% CI -0.16, 0.49). The small number of trials and heterogeneity of interventions limit our findings.ConclusionsPsychosocial interventions delivered by non-specialists are beneficial for PCMDs, especially psychological interventions. Research is needed on interventions in low-income countries, treatment versus preventive approaches, and cost-effectiveness. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of digital psychological interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the available evidence for digital psychological interventions in reducing mental health problems in LMICs.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane databases for articles published in English from database inception to March 9, 2020. We included randomised controlled trials investigating digital psychological interventions in individuals with mental health problems in LMICs. We extracted data on demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, details of the intervention, including the setting, digital delivery method, control group conditions, number of sessions, therapeutic orientation (eg, cognitive therapy or behaviour therapy), presence or absence of guidance, and length of follow-up, and statistical information to calculate effect sizes. If a study reported insufficient data to calculate effect sizes, the corresponding authors were contacted to provide data that could be aggregated. We did random-effects meta-analyses, and calculated the standardised mean difference in scores of digital psychological interventions versus control conditions (Hedges'g). Quality of evidence was assessed by use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The primary outcome was post-intervention mental health problems, as measured by self-reporting instruments or clinical interviews. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019137755.FindingsWe identified 22 eligible studies that were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies involved a total of 4104 participants (2351 who received a digital psychological intervention and 1753 who were in the control group), and mainly focused on young adults (mean age of the study population was 20-35 years) with depression or substance misuse. The results showed that digital psychological interventions are moderately effective when compared with control interventions (Hedges'g 0·60 [95% CI 0·45-0·75]; Hedges'g with treatment as usual subgroup for comparison 0·54 [0·35-0·73]). Heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=74% [95% CI 60-83]). There was no evidence of publication bias, and the quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria was generally high.InterpretationDigital psychological interventions, which have been mostly studied in individuals with depression and substance misuse, are superior to control conditions, including usual care, and are moderately effective in LMICs. However, the considerable heterogeneity observed in our analysis highlights the need for more studies to be done, with standardised implementation of digital psychological intervention programmes to improve their reproducibility and efficiency. Digital psychological interventions should be considered for regions where usual care for mental health problems is minimal or absent.FundingNone.TranslationsFor the Persian, Chinese, Hindi, Portuguese, Bahasa, Turkish, Romanian, Spanish and Thai translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Project description:BackgroundTask sharing has been used worldwide to improve access to mental health care, where nonspecialist providers-individuals with no formal training in mental health-have been trained to effectively treat perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms. Little formative research has been conducted to examine relevant barriers and facilitators of nonspecialist providers and the use of telemedicine in treatment service delivery.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to examine the main barriers and facilitators of nonspecialist provider-delivered psychological treatments for perinatal populations with common mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, from a multistakeholder perspective.MethodsThis study took place in Toronto, Canada. In total, 33 in-depth interviews were conducted with multiple stakeholder groups (women with lived experience and their significant others, as well as health and mental health professionals). Qualitative data were quantified to estimate commonly endorsed themes within and across stakeholder groups.ResultsPsychological treatments delivered by nonspecialist providers were considered acceptable by the vast majority of participants (30/33, 90%). Across all stakeholder groups, nurses (20/33, 61%) and midwives (14/33, 42%) were the most commonly endorsed cadre of nonspecialist providers. The majority of stakeholders (32/33, 97%) were amenable to nonspecialist providers delivering psychological treatment via telemedicine (27/33, 82%), although concerns were raised about the ability to establish a therapeutic alliance via telemedicine (16/33, 48%). Empathy was the most desired characteristic of a nonspecialist provider (61%). Patient and patient advocate stakeholders were more likely to emphasize stigma as an important barrier to accessing psychological treatments (7/12, 58%), compared to clinicians (2/9, 22%) and spouses (1/5, 20%). Clinician stakeholders were more likely to emphasize the importance of ensuring nonspecialist providers were trained to deliver psychological treatments (3/9, 33%), compared to other stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThese results can inform the design, implementation, and integration of nonspecialist-delivered interventions via telemedicine for women with perinatal depressive and anxiety symptoms in high-income country contexts.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the evidence on the effectiveness of mental health promotion interventions for young people in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Commissioned by the WHO, a review of the evidence for mental health promotion interventions across the lifespan from early years to adulthood was conducted. This paper reports on the findings for interventions promoting the positive mental health of young people (aged 6-18 years) in school and community-based settings. METHODS:Searching a range of electronic databases, 22 studies employing RCTs (N = 11) and quasi-experimental designs conducted in LMICs since 2000 were identified. Fourteen studies of school-based interventions implemented in eight LMICs were reviewed; seven of which included interventions for children living in areas of armed conflict and six interventions of multicomponent lifeskills and resilience training. Eight studies evaluating out-of-school community interventions for adolescents were identified in five countries. Using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) criteria, two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the evidence. RESULTS:The findings from the majority of the school-based interventions are strong. Structured universal interventions for children living in conflict areas indicate generally significant positive effects on students' emotional and behavioural wellbeing, including improved self-esteem and coping skills. However, mixed results were also reported, including differential effects for gender and age groups, and two studies reported nonsignficant findings. The majority of the school-based lifeskills and resilience programmes received a moderate quality rating, with findings indicating positive effects on students' self-esteem, motivation and self-efficacy. The quality of evidence from the community-based interventions for adolescents was moderate to strong with promising findings concerning the potential of multicomponent interventions to impact on youth mental health and social wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS:The review findings indicate that interventions promoting the mental health of young people can be implemented effectively in LMIC school and community settings with moderate to strong evidence of their impact on both positive and negative mental health outcomes. There is a paucity of evidence relating to interventions for younger children in LMIC primary schools. Evidence for the scaling up and sustainability of mental health promotion interventions in LMICs needs to be strengthened.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.