Dataset Information

Validated screening tools to identify common mental disorders in perinatal and postpartum women in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Perinatal common mental disorders are associated with significant adverse outcomes for women and their families, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. Early detection through screening with locally-validated tools can improve outcomes.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Health, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar for articles on the validation of screening tools for common mental disorders in perinatal women in India, with no language or date restrictions. Quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models to calculate pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Heterogeneity was assessed by visualising the distance of individual studies from the summary curve.

Results

Seven studies involving 1003 women were analysed. All studies assessed the validity of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in identifying perinatal depression. No validation studies of any other screening tools were identified. Using a common threshold of ≥13 the EPDS had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 88·9% (95%CI 77·4-94·9) and 93·4 (95%CI 81·5-97·8), respectively. Using optimal thresholds (range ≥ 9 to ≥13) the EPDS had a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 94·4% (95%CI 81·7-98·4) and 90·8 (95%CI 83·7-95·0), respectively.

Conclusion

The EPDS is psychometrically valid in diverse Indian settings and its use in routine maternity care could improve detection of perinatal depression. Further research is required to validate screening tools for other perinatal common mental disorders in India.

SUBMITTER: Fellmeth G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8056564 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundApproximately one in five women who have recently given birth suffer from common mental disorder (CMD), particularly depression and/or anxiety. Most available CMD screening tools in most low- and middle-income countries do not screen for more than one mental health problem. Having a screening tool that is free to use, short in assessment time, and used to screen for more than one CMD is appealing in a resource-constrained setting.MethodWe conducted a criterion validation study of the Chichewa translated and adapted DASS-21 instrument against gold standard diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorders using an independently administered Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). We compared the performance of the DASS-depression subscale with the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS). Internal reliability was reported using both Cronbach's alpha and ordinal alpha. The DASS-21 and EPDS ability to discriminate cases from non-cases was assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. We selected cut-off points for DASS-21 and EPDS that maximise both sensitivity and specificity.ResultsOne hundred fifteen participants were administered all the measures. Approximately 11.3% and 14.8% had depression and anxiety diagnoses respectively using SCID. The overall Cronbach's alpha for the DASS-21 scale was 0.74. The DASS-21 subscales had Cronbach's alpha values of 0.66, 0.29 and 0.52 for depression (DASS-D), anxiety (DASS-A) and stress (DASS-S), respectively. The ordinal alpha for DASS-D, DASS-A and DASS-S subscales were 0.83, 0.74 and 0.87, respectively. The area under the ROC curve was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.61; 0.91) for DASS-D and 0.65 for DASS-A. At a cut-off point of one or more, the sensitivity and specificity for DASS-D were 69.2% and 75.5%, whilst DASS-A was 52.9% and 75.5%, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficient for the association between DASS-D and EPDS was r = 0.61, p < 0.001.ConclusionThe DASS-21 had good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and its ordinal alpha demonstrated good internal reliability for all its sub-scales. Regarding the criterion validation, only the DASS-D and EPDS demonstrated a satisfactory ability to discriminate cases from non-cases. Our findings suggest that health practitioners can use DASS-D as an alternative tool in screening depression as it has fewer questions than EPDS.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Integrating care for common mental disorders (CMDs) such as depression, anxiety and alcohol abuse into primary healthcare (PHC) should assist in reducing South Africa (SA)'s quadruple burden of disease. CMDs compromise treatment adherence, health behaviour change and self-management of illnesses. Appropriate identification of mental disorders in primary care can be facilitated by brief, easy-to-administer screening that promotes high specificity. OBJECTIVES:To establish the criterion-based validity of a seven-item Brief Mental Health (BMH) screening tool for assessing positive symptoms of CMDs in primary care patients. METHODS:A total of 1 214 participants were recruited from all patients aged ?18 years visiting 10 clinics as part of routine care in the Newcastle subdistrict of Amajuba District in KwaZulu-Natal Province, SA, over a period of 2 weeks. Consenting patients provided basic biographical information prior to screening with the BMH tool. PHC nurses remained blind to this assessment. PHC nurse-initiated assessment using the Adult Primary Care (APC) guidelines was the gold standard against which the performance of the BMH tool was compared. A specificity standard of 80% was used to establish cut-points. Specificity was favoured over sensitivity to ensure that those who did not have CMD symptoms were excluded, as well as to reduce over-referrals. RESULTS:Of the participants, 72% were female. The AUD-C (alcohol abuse) performed well (area under the curve (AUC) 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 - 0.95), cut-point ?4, Cronbach alpha 0.87); PHQ-2 (depression) performed reasonably well (AUC 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 - 0.78), cut-point ?3, alpha 0.71); and GAD-2 (anxiety) performance was acceptable (AUC 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 - 0.80), cut-point ?3, alpha 0.62). Using the higher cut-off scores, patients who truly did not have CMD symptoms had negative predictive values (NPVs) of >90%. Overall, 26% of patients had CMD positive symptoms relative to 8% using the APC guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:Using a higher specificity index, the positive predictive value and NPV show that at higher cut-point values the BMH not only helps identify individuals with alcohol misuse, depression and anxiety symptoms but also identifies a majority of those who do not have symptoms (true negatives), thus not overburdening nurses with false positives needing assessment. Research is needed to assess whether use of such a short and valid screening tool is generalisable to other clinic contexts as well as how mental health screening should best be introduced into routine clinic functioning and practice.

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:IntroductionPregnant and postpartum women face major psychological stressors that put them at higher risk of developing common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety. Yet, their limited access to and uptake of traditional mental health care is inequitable, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mobile interventions emerged as a potential solution to this discontinued healthcare access, but more knowledge is needed about their effectiveness and impact on health equity. This equity-focused systematic review examined the effectiveness and equity impact of mobile interventions targeting common mental disorders among pregnant and postpartum women.Methods and resultsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and 3 other databases, from date of database inception and until January 2021, for experimental studies on mobile interventions targeting pregnant and postpartum women. We used pooled and narrative synthesis methods to analyze effectiveness and equity data, critically appraised the methodological rigour of included studies using Cochrane tools, and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Our search identified 6148 records, of which 18 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included. Mobile interventions had a clinically important impact on reducing the occurrence of depression (OR = 0.51 [95% CI 0.41 to 0.64]; absolute risk reduction RD: 7.14% [95% CI 4.92 to 9.36]; p<0.001) and preventing its severity perinatally (MD = -3.07; 95% CI -4.68 to -1.46; p<0.001). Mobile cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was effective in managing postpartum depression (MD = -6.87; 95% CI -7.92 to -5.82; p<0.001), whereas other support-based interventions had no added benefit. Results on anxiety outcomes and utilization of care were limited. Our equity-focused analyses showed that ethnicity, age, education, and being primiparous were characteristics of influence to the effectiveness of mobile interventions.ConclusionAs the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the need for virtual mental health care, mobile interventions show promise in preventing and managing common mental disorders among pregnant and postpartum women. Such interventions carry the potential to address health inequity but more rigorous research that examines patients' intersecting social identities is needed.

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."