Dataset Information

Psychological and social interventions for mental health issues and disorders in Southeast Asia: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mental health issues and disorders are major public health challenges, particularly in low- and middle-income countries in Southeast Asia, where chronic shortages in mental health services and human resources exist. The development of effective and accessible mental health systems in Southeast Asia will require evidence based psychological and social interventions. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the evidence on the effectiveness of such interventions for mental health issues and disorders in Southeast Asia.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of 7 electronic databases (PsycINFO, Medline (Ovid), Cochrane library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, APA PsycArticles, and Social Care Online) was undertaken.

Results

Thirty two studies employing RCT designs to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of psychological and social mental health interventions on a number of different mental health outcomes were included in this review. The disparate intervention programmes reviewed were categorised as: lay delivered, yoga, aerobic and/or meditation based, cognitive behavioural therapy oriented, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing based (EMDR), health worker delivered, and hybrid programmes. The majority of the studies included in this review were of low to moderate quality due to the variability in the quality of the study design. The highest quality, and most promising evidence came from the evaluations of lay delivered interventions. This evidence demonstrates the feasibility and potential sustainability of implementing such interventions in resource constrained contexts.

Conclusions

The review findings indicate that a disparate array of mental health interventions can be implemented effectively in a range of Southeast Asian mental health and health settings. There is a clear need for significantly more research however, through higher quality and larger scale RCTs before it will be known more definitively, if these interventions are effective, and for whom they are most effective in different Southeast Asian contexts.

SUBMITTER: Maddock A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8178881 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the evidence for the use of psychological and psychosocial interventions offered to forensic mental health inpatients.DesignCINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ScienceDirect and Web of Science databases were searched for research published in English between 1 January 1990 and 31 May 2018.Outcome measuresDisturbance, mental well-being, quality of life, recovery, violence/risk, satisfaction, seclusion, symptoms, therapeutic relationship and ward environment. There were no limits on the length of follow-up.Eligibility criteriaWe included randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies of any psychological or psychosocial intervention in an inpatient forensic setting. Pilot or feasibility studies were included if an RCT design was used.We restricted our search criteria to inpatients in low, medium and high secure units aged over 18. We focused on interventions considered applicable to most patients residing in forensic mental health settings.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias.Results17 232 citations were identified with 195 full manuscripts examined in detail. Nine papers were included in the review. The heterogeneity of the identified studies meant that meta-analysis was inappropriate. The results were presented in table form together with a narrative synthesis. Only 7 out of 91 comparisons revealed statistically significant results with no consistent significant findings. The most frequently reported outcomes were violence/risk and symptoms. 61% of the violence/risk comparisons and 79% of the symptom comparisons reported improvements in the intervention groups compared with the control groups.ConclusionsCurrent practice is based on limited evidence with no consistent significant findings. This review suggests psychoeducational and psychosocial interventions did not reduce violence/risk, but there is tentative support they may improve symptoms. More RCTs are required with: larger sample sizes, representative populations, standardised outcomes and control group interventions similar in treatment intensity to the intervention.Prospero registration numberCRD42017067099.

Project description:IntroductionThe mental health burden and treatment gap in South and Southeast Asia is high and significant. Capacity building of healthcare workers is essential to support programmes related to the detection and management of patients with mental health conditions. We aim to conduct a systematic review to summarise the research on educational, training and capacity-building interventions aimed at the healthcare workforce in detection and management of mental health conditions in South and Southeast Asia.ObjectiveTo synthesise evidence on (1) the types of educational and training interventions that have been used to improve the knowledge, skills and attitudes of healthcare workers in South and Southeast Asian countries in the detection and management of mental health conditions; (2) the effectiveness, including cost-effectiveness of the interventions; and (3) the enabling factors and barriers that influence the effectiveness of these interventions.Methods and analysisThis review will be conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We will search six electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Global Health for empirical studies published from 1 January 2000 to 31 August 2020. Search results from each database will be combined and uploaded in Covidence library. Title, abstract and full-text screening, and data extraction of each included study will be performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer and study team. Quality of included studies will be assessed by the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool and ROBINS-I tool. Data will be synthesised and if a meta-analysis is not appropriate, a stepwise thematic analysis will be performed.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, fact sheets, multimedia press briefings, conferences, seminars and symposia.Prospero registration numberCRD42020203955.