Dataset Information

Contemporary treatment of anxiety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes in countries with universal healthcare.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent mental health conditions and are managed predominantly in primary care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological and pharmacological treatments in countries with universal healthcare, and investigated the influence of treatment provider on the efficacy of psychological treatment.

Method

PubMed, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched in April 2017 for controlled studies of evidence-based anxiety treatment in adults in primary care, published in English since 1997. Searches were repeated in April 2020. We synthesised results using a combination of meta-analysis and narrative methods. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects multi-level model to account for intercorrelation between effects contributed different treatment arms of the same study. Moderator variables were explored using meta-regression analyses.

Results

In total, 19 articles (from an initial 2,247) reporting 18 studies were included. Meta-analysis including ten studies (n = 1,308) found a pooled effect size of g = 1.16 (95%CI = 0.63 - 1.69) for psychological treatment compared to waitlist control, and no significant effect compared to care as usual (p = .225). Substantial heterogeneity was present (I² = 81.25). Specialist treatment produced large effects compared to both waitlist control (g = 1.46, 95%CI = 0.96 - 1.96) and care as usual (g = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.27 - 1.25). Treatment provided by non-specialists was only superior to waitlist control (g = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.31 - 1.28). We identified relatively few studies (n = 4) of medications, which reported small to moderate effects for SSRI/SNRI medications and hydroxyzine. The quality of included studies was variable and most studies had at least "unclear" risk of bias in one or more key domains.

Conclusions

Psychological treatments for anxiety are effective in primary care and are more effective when provided by a specialist (psychologist or clinical psychologist) than a non-specialist (GP, nurse, trainee). However, non-specialists provide effective treatment compared with no care at all. Limited research into the efficacy of pharmacological treatments in primary care needs to be considered carefully by prescribers TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018050659.

SUBMITTER: Parker EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8126070 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe widespread use of antibiotics plays a major role in the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. However, important knowledge gaps still exist regarding the extent of their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly at the primary care level. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted in primary care in LMICs to estimate the prevalence of antibiotic prescriptions as well as the proportion of such prescriptions that are inappropriate.Methods and findingsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Global Health, and CENTRAL for articles published between 1 January 2010 and 4 April 2019 without language restrictions. We subsequently updated our search on PubMed only to capture publications up to 11 March 2020. Studies conducted in LMICs (defined as per the World Bank criteria) reporting data on medicine use in primary care were included. Three reviewers independently screened citations by title and abstract, whereas the full-text evaluation of all selected records was performed by 2 reviewers, who also conducted data extraction and quality assessment. A modified version of a tool developed by Hoy and colleagues was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias of each included study. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed to identify the proportion of patients receiving antibiotics. The WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) framework was used to classify prescribed antibiotics. We identified 48 studies from 27 LMICs, mostly conducted in the public sector and in urban areas, and predominantly based on medical records abstraction and/or drug prescription audits. The pooled prevalence proportion of antibiotic prescribing was 52% (95% CI: 51%-53%), with a prediction interval of 44%-60%. Individual studies' estimates were consistent across settings. Only 9 studies assessed rationality, and the proportion of inappropriate prescription among patients with various conditions ranged from 8% to 100%. Among 16 studies in 15 countries that reported details on prescribed antibiotics, Access-group antibiotics accounted for more than 60% of the total in 12 countries. The interpretation of pooled estimates is limited by the considerable between-study heterogeneity. Also, most of the available studies suffer from methodological issues and report insufficient details to assess appropriateness of prescription.ConclusionsAntibiotics are highly prescribed in primary care across LMICs. Although a subset of studies reported a high proportion of inappropriate use, the true extent could not be assessed due to methodological limitations. Yet, our findings highlight the need for urgent action to improve prescription practices, starting from the integration of WHO treatment recommendations and the AWaRe classification into national guidelines.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42019123269.

Project description:ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused unforeseen impacts on sexual and reproductive healthcare (SRH) services worldwide, and the nature and prevalence of these changes have not been extensively synthesized. We sought to synthesise reported outcomes on the impact of COVID-19 on SRH access and delivery in comparable countries with universal healthcare systems.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL from January 1st, 2020 to June 6th, 2023. Original research was eligible for inclusion if the study reported on COVID-19 and SRH access and/or delivery. Twenty-eight OECD countries with comparable economies and universal healthcare systems were included. We extracted study characteristics, participant characteristics, study design, and outcome variables. The methodological quality of each article was assessed using the Quality Assessment with Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for reporting the results. This study was registered on PROSPERO (#CRD42021245596).SynthesisEighty-two studies met inclusion criteria. Findings were qualitatively synthesised into the domains of: antepartum care, intrapartum care, postpartum care, assisted reproductive technologies, abortion access, gynaecological care, sexual health services, and HIV care. Research was concentrated in relatively few countries. Access and delivery were negatively impacted by a variety of factors, including service disruptions, unclear communication regarding policy decisions, decreased timeliness of care, and fear of COVID-19 exposure. Across outpatient services, providers favoured models of care that avoided in-person appointments. Hospitals prioritized models of care that reduced time and number of people in hospital and aerosol-generating environments.ConclusionsOverall, studies demonstrated reduced access and delivery across most domains of SRH services during COVID-19. Variations in service restrictions and accommodations were heterogeneous within countries and between institutions. Future work should examine long-term impacts of COVID-19, underserved populations, and underrepresented countries.