Dataset Information

Economic evaluations of psychological treatments for common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are highly prevalent conditions that constitute a major public health and economic burden on society in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the increased demand for economic evidence to support resource allocation for scaled-up implementation of mental health services in these contexts, economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs remain scarce.

Objective

The proposed systematic review aims to synthesize findings on methods and outcomes of economic evaluations of psychological treatments for CMDs in LMICs and appraise quality.

Methods

We will identify, select, and extract data from published economic evaluations of psychological interventions for CMDs conducted in LMICs. We will search bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, EconLit, PsycINFO, Africa-Wide Information, Cochrane library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry), and the African Journals Online (AJOL) and Google Scholar platforms. Only full economic evaluations (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA), Cost-Consequence Analysis (CCA), or Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)) of psychological treatments for CMDs (defined as depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders) conducted in LMICs will be included. There will be no restrictions based on date of publication, perspective, follow-up duration or sample size. Data extraction will be guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

Results

The results presented will be examined using a narrative synthesis approach. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Drummond & Jefferson checklist.

Conclusion

The fledgling evidence base in this area provides an opportunity to promote improved economic evaluation methods in line with repeated calls for economic evidence alongside effectiveness evidence in these settings. A rigorously developed economic evaluation evidence base will support resource allocation decisions for scaled up implementation of psychological interventions in LMIC settings.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020185277.

SUBMITTER: Mutyambizi-Mafunda V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8439217 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with common mental disorders (CMDs) who also experience intimate partner violence is scarce. We aimed to test our hypothesis that exposure to intimate partner violence would reduce intervention effectiveness for CMDs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, ScieELO, Cochrane, PubMed databases, trials registries, 3ie, Google Scholar, and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and Aug 16, 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for CMDs in LMICs which measured intimate partner violence were included, without language or date restrictions. We approached study authors to obtain unpublished aggregate subgroup data for women who did and did not report intimate partner violence. We did separate random-effects meta-analyses for anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychological distress outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials was synthesised as differences between standardised mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, comparing women who did and who did not report intimate partner violence via random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42017078611.FindingsOf 8122 records identified, 21 were eligible and data were available for 15 RCTs, all of which had a low to moderate risk of overall bias. Anxiety (five interventions, 728 participants) showed a greater response to intervention among women reporting intimate partner violence than among those who did not (difference in standardised mean differences [dSMD] 0·31, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·57, I2=49·4%). No differences in response to intervention were seen in women reporting intimate partner violence for PTSD (eight interventions, n=1436; dSMD 0·14, 95% CI -0·06 to 0·33, I2=42·6%), depression (12 interventions, n=2940; 0·10, -0·04 to 0·25, I2=49·3%), and psychological distress (four interventions, n=1591; 0·07, -0·05 to 0·18, I2=0·0%, p=0·681).InterpretationPsychological interventions treat anxiety effectively in women with current or recent intimate partner violence exposure in LMICs when delivered by appropriately trained and supervised health-care staff, even when not tailored for this population or targeting intimate partner violence directly. Future research should investigate whether adapting evidence-based psychological interventions for CMDs to address intimate partner violence enhances their acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness in LMICs.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research ASSET and King's IoPPN Clinician Investigator Scholarship.

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: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."

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the cost of delivering breast cancer (BC) care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is critical to guide effective care delivery strategies. This scoping review summarizes the scope of literature on the costs of BC care in LMICs and characterizes the methodological approaches of these economic evaluations.Materials and methodsA systematic literature search was performed in five databases and gray literature up to March 2020. Studies were screened to identify original articles that included a cost outcome for BC diagnosis or treatment in an LMIC. Two independent reviewers assessed articles for eligibility. Data related to study characteristics and methodology were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond et al. checklist.ResultsNinety-one articles across 38 countries were included. The majority (73%) of studies were published between 2013 and 2020. Low-income countries (2%) and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa (9%) were grossly underrepresented. The majority of studies (60%) used a health care system perspective. Time horizon was not reported in 30 studies (33%). Of the 33 studies that estimated the cost of multiple steps in the BC care pathway, the majority (73%) were of high quality, but studies varied in their inclusion of nonmedical direct and indirect costs.ConclusionThere has been substantial growth in the number of BC economic evaluations in LMICs in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries, especially those in Sub-Saharan Africa. BC economic evaluations should be prioritized in these countries. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses.Implications for practiceThere has been substantial growth in the number of breast cancer economic evaluations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the past decade, but there remain limited data from low-income countries. Breast cancer economic evaluations should be prioritized in low-income countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa. Researchers should strive to use and report a costing perspective and time horizon that captures all costs relevant to the study objective, including those such as direct nonmedical and indirect costs. Use of existing frameworks for economic evaluations in LMICs may help achieve comparable, transparent costing analyses in order to guide breast cancer control strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Chronic hepatitis B infection is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are disproportionately affected. Economic evaluations are a useful decision tool to assess costs versus benefits of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening. No published study reviewing economic evaluations of HBV screening in LMICs has been undertaken to date. METHODS:The following databases were searched from inception to 21 April 2017: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Library, Global Health and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry. English-language studies were included if they assessed the costs against the benefits of HBV screening in LMICs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024391, 20 July 2015. RESULTS:Nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. One study from Thailand indicated that adding hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) to HBV vaccination for newborns following screening of pregnant women might be cost-effective for some LMICs, though inadequate total funding and health infrastructure were likely to limit feasibility. A similar study from China indicated a benefit to cost ratio of 2.7 from selective HBIG administration to newborns, if benefits were considered from a societal perspective. Of the two studies assessing screening amongst the general adult population, a single cost-benefit analysis from China found a benefit to cost ratio (BCR) of 1.73 with vaccination guided by HBV screening of adults aged 21-39, compared to 1.42 with vaccination with no screening, both from a societal perspective. Community-based screening of adults in The Gambia with linkage to treatment yielded an incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year averted of $566 (in 2017 USD), less than two-times gross domestic product per capita for that country. CONCLUSIONS:Screening with 'catch-up' vaccination for younger adults yielded benefits above costs, and screening linked with treatment has shown cost-effectiveness that may be affordable for some LMICs. However, interpretation needs to account for total cost implications and further research in LMICs is warranted as there were only nine included studies and evidence from high-income countries is not always directly applicable.