Which Non-Pharmaceutical Primary Care Interventions Reduce Inequalities in Common Mental Health Disorders? A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Studies.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tanner L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8701146 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Socioeconomic differences appear to be reflected in both, the development and the treatment of common mental disorders (CMDs, i.e. depressive, anxiety and stress-related disorders). Underlying mechanisms of these inequalities are to date not fully understood. This study aimed to investigate if (1) there are socioeconomic differences with regard to type of treatment and (2) if the socioeconomic status modifies the association between treatment and subsequent inpatient care or suicide attempt, respectively, in individuals with CMDs.The study population comprised 66,097 individuals aged 18-59 on sick-leave due to a CMD during 2006 in Sweden. Cox regression with a follow-up from 2007 through 2010 estimated crude and multivariate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Individuals with sickness absence due to CMDs and a higher educational level were had a lower proportions of specialised health care and combined psychiatric medication than their counterparts with lower education. However, if high educated CMD patients received more combined medication, associations with subsequent mental inpatient care (p < 0.01) and suicide attempt (p < 0.05) were stronger than for their counterparts with low education. Moreover, previous inpatient care due to mental disorders was associated with higher HRs of subsequent suicide attempt in CMD patients with high education (HR 5.88; CI 3.02-11.45) compared to those with low education (1.96; 1.06-3.60).Findings suggest that socioeconomic inequalities shape differences in treatment measures and mental health development in individuals with CMDs. These differences might signal discrepancies in treatment per se or reflect morbidity differences requiring different treatment regimens, or may be due to the fact that different diagnoses are given in different educational strata due to differential role of stigma.
| S-EPMC5534196 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:It is presumed that pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of prenatal common mental disorders can mitigate associated adverse effects in offspring, yet strong evidence for the prophylactic benefits of treatment is lacking. We therefore examined the effect of prenatal treatments for common mental disorders on offspring outcomes. METHODS:For this meta-analysis, articles published up to August 31, 2017, were obtained from PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Included studies needed to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of treatment of prenatal common mental disorders comparing an intervention to a control condition, including offspring outcome(s). Random effects models were used to calculate Hedges' g in the program Comprehensive Meta-Analysis© (version 3.0). RESULTS:Sixteen randomized controlled trials among 2778 pregnant women compared offspring outcomes between prenatal interventions and control groups. There were zero pharmacological, 13 psychological, and three other interventions (homeopathy, relaxation interventions, and short psycho-education). Birth weight (mean difference 42.88 g, g?=?0.08, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.22, p?=?0.27, n?=?11), Apgar scores (g?=?0.13, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.54, p?=?0.53, n?=?4), and gestational age (g?=?0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.54, p?=?0.49, n?=?10) were not significantly affected. Other offspring outcomes could not be meta-analyzed due to the inconsistent reporting of offspring outcomes and an insufficient number of studies. CONCLUSIONS:Non-pharmacological interventions had no significant effect on birth outcomes, although this outcome should be considered with caution due to the risk of biases. No randomized controlled trial examined the effects of prenatal pharmacological treatments as compared to treatment as usual for common mental disorders on offspring outcomes. Present clinical guidelines may require more research evidence on offspring outcomes, including child development, in order to warrant the current recommendation to routinely screen and subsequently treat prenatal common mental disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016047190.
| S-EPMC6237028 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMental health interventions delivered through mobile health (mHealth) technologies can increase the access to mental health services, especially among university students. The development of mHealth intervention is complex and needs to be context sensitive. There is currently limited evidence on the perceptions, needs, and barriers related to these interventions in the Southeast Asian context.ObjectiveThis qualitative study aimed to explore the perception of university students and mental health supporters in Singapore about mental health services, campaigns, and mHealth interventions with a focus on conversational agent interventions for the prevention of common mental disorders such as anxiety and depression.MethodsWe conducted 6 web-based focus group discussions with 30 university students and one-to-one web-based interviews with 11 mental health supporters consisting of faculty members tasked with student pastoral care, a mental health first aider, counselors, psychologists, a clinical psychologist, and a psychiatrist. The qualitative analysis followed a reflexive thematic analysis framework.ResultsThe following 6 main themes were identified: a healthy lifestyle as students, access to mental health services, the role of mental health promotion campaigns, preferred mHealth engagement features, factors that influence the adoption of mHealth interventions, and cultural relevance of mHealth interventions. The interpretation of our findings shows that students were reluctant to use mental health services because of the fear of stigma and a possible lack of confidentiality.ConclusionsStudy participants viewed mHealth interventions for mental health as part of a blended intervention. They also felt that future mental health mHealth interventions should be more personalized and capable of managing adverse events such as suicidal ideation.
| S-EPMC10131767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2017-02-08 | GSE93407 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus pandemic has exposed existing social inequalities in relation to disease preventive behaviors, risk of exposure, testing and healthcare access, and consequences as a result of illness and containment measures across different population groups. However, due to a lack of data, to date there has been limited evidence of the extent of such within-country inequalities globally.MethodsWe examined education-related inequalities in four COVID-19 prevention and testing indicators within 90 countries, using data from the University of Maryland Social Data Science Center Global COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey, in partnership with Facebook, over the period 1 June 2021 to 31 December 2021. The overall level of education-related inequalities, as well as how they differ across country income groups and how they have changed over time were analyzed using the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and the Relative Index of Inequality (RII). We also assessed whether these education-related inequalities were associated with government policies and responses.ResultsEducation-related inequalities in beliefs, mask wearing, social distancing and testing varied across the study countries. Mask wearing and beliefs in the effectiveness of social distancing and mask wearing were overall more common among people with a higher level of education. Even after controlling for other sociodemographic and health-related factors, social distancing practice was higher among the most educated in low/lower middle income countries, but was higher overall among the least educated in high income countries. Overall there were low education-related inequalities in COVID-19 testing, though there was variation across countries.ConclusionsThe study highlights important within-country education-related differences in COVID-19 beliefs, preventive behaviors and testing, as well as differing trends across country income groups. This has implications for considering and targeting specific population groups when designing public health interventions and messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic and future health emergencies.
| S-EPMC9648879 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe access to empirically-supported treatments for common mental disorders in children and adolescents is often limited. Mental health apps might extend service supplies, as they are deemed to be cost-efficient, scalable and appealing for youth. However, little is known about the quality of available apps. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate current mobile-based interventions for pediatric anxiety, depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).MethodsSystematic searches were conducted in Google Play Store and Apple App Store to identify relevant apps. To be eligible for inclusion, apps needed to be: (1) designed to target either anxiety, depression or PTSD in youth (0-18 years); (2) developed for children, adolescents or caregivers; (3) provided in English or German; (4) operative after download. The quality of eligible apps was assessed with two standardized rating systems (i.e., Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and ENLIGHT) independently by two reviewers.ResultsOverall, the searches revealed 3806 apps, with 15 mental health apps (0.39%) fulfilling our inclusion criteria. The mean overall scores suggested a moderate app quality (MARS: M = 3.59, SD = 0.50; ENLIGHT: M = 3.22, SD = 0.73). Moreover, only one app was evaluated in an RCT. The correlation of both rating scales was high (r = .936; p < .001), whereas no significant correlations were found between rating scales and user ratings (p > .05).ConclusionsOur results point to a rather poor overall app quality, and indicate an absence of scientific-driven development and lack of methodologically sound evaluation of apps. Thus, future high-quality research is required, both in terms of theoretically informed intervention development and assessment of mental health apps in RCTs. Furthermore, institutionalized best-practices that provide central information on different aspects of apps (e.g., effectiveness, safety, and data security) for patients, caregivers, stakeholders and mental health professionals are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC8438844 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8555821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCultural adaptation of mental health care interventions is key, particularly when there is little or no therapist interaction. There is little published information on the methods of adaptation of bibliotherapy and e-mental health interventions.ObjectiveTo systematically search for evidence of the effectiveness of minimally guided interventions for the treatment of common mental disorders among culturally diverse people with common mental disorders; to analyze the extent and effects of cultural adaptation of minimally guided interventions for the treatment of common mental disorders.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials that tested the efficacy of minimally guided or self-help interventions for depression or anxiety among culturally diverse populations. We calculated pooled standardized mean differences using a random-effects model. In addition, we administered a questionnaire to the authors of primary studies to assess the cultural adaptation methods used in the included primary studies. We entered this information into a meta-regression to investigate effects of the extent of adaptation on intervention efficacy.ResultsWe included eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) out of the 4911 potentially eligible records identified by the search: four on e-mental health and four on bibliotherapy. The extent of cultural adaptation varied across the studies, with language translation and use of metaphors being the most frequently applied elements of adaptation. The pooled standardized mean difference for primary outcome measures of depression and anxiety was -0.81 (95% CI -0.10 to -0.62). Higher cultural adaptation scores were significantly associated with greater effect sizes (P=.04).ConclusionsOur results support the results of previous systematic reviews on the cultural adaptation of face-to-face interventions: the extent of cultural adaptation has an effect on intervention efficacy. More research is warranted to explore how cultural adaptation may contribute to improve the acceptability and effectiveness of minimally guided psychological interventions for common mental disorders.
| S-EPMC5057065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-pharmaceutical public health interventions may provide simple, low-cost, effective ways of minimising the transmission and impact of acute respiratory infections in pandemic and non-pandemic contexts. Understanding what influences the uptake of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as hand and respiratory hygiene, mask wearing and social distancing could help to inform the development of effective public health advice messages. The aim of this synthesis was to explore public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions that aim to reduce the transmission of acute respiratory infections.MethodsFive online databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) were systematically searched. Reference lists of articles were also examined. We selected papers that used a qualitative research design to explore perceptions and beliefs about non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce transmission of acute respiratory infections. We excluded papers that only explored how health professionals or children viewed non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control. Three authors performed data extraction and assessment of study quality. Thematic analysis and components of meta-ethnography were adopted to synthesise findings.ResultsSeventeen articles from 16 studies in 9 countries were identified and reviewed. Seven key themes were identified: perceived benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions, perceived disadvantages of non-pharmaceutical interventions, personal and cultural beliefs about infection transmission, diagnostic uncertainty in emerging respiratory infections, perceived vulnerability to infection, anxiety about emerging respiratory infections and communications about emerging respiratory infections. The synthesis showed that some aspects of non-pharmaceutical respiratory infection control (particularly hand and respiratory hygiene) were viewed as familiar and socially responsible actions to take. There was ambivalence about adopting isolation and personal distancing behaviours in some contexts due to their perceived adverse impact and potential to attract social stigma. Common perceived barriers included beliefs about infection transmission, personal vulnerability to respiratory infection and concerns about self-diagnosis in emerging respiratory infections.ConclusionsPeople actively evaluate non-pharmaceutical interventions in terms of their perceived necessity, efficacy, acceptability, and feasibility. To enhance uptake, it will be necessary to address key barriers, such as beliefs about infection transmission, rejection of personal risk of infection and concern about the potential costs and stigma associated with some interventions.
| S-EPMC4063987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe stigma towards mental disorders can limit the use and effectiveness of available mental health interventions for young people. We aim to systematically review effectiveness of interventions to reduce stigma towards mental disorders in young people, as evidence has not been recently and systematically synthesised on this topic.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised or controlled clinical trials of interventions to reduce stigma towards mental disorders in people aged 10-24 years. Studies involving a comparison group, post intervention and/or follow-up assessments of knowledge, attitudes and/or behaviours towards mental disorders (including help-seeking behaviours), will be included. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, PubMed and PsycINFO databases will be searched, without time limits, for eligible studies in English or Spanish, and with results available. Databases will be searched from July 2020 to April 2021. The study selection process, the data extraction and the critical evaluation-with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool-of included studies will be performed independently and in duplicate by teams of reviewers, with the assistance of a third party, until reaching a high degree of agreement. In the presence of substantial heterogeneity (I2 >75%), a narrative synthesis of the study results will be used. If feasible, we will also conduct a quality effects model for the statistical synthesis of results. If sufficient data are available, subgroup analyses will be performed to assess potential sources of heterogeneity. Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori index will be used to assess publication bias. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be used to assess the confidence in the evidence reviewed.Ethics and disseminationResults are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal in the field of adolescent and/or youth mental health.Prospero registration numberCRD42020210901.
| S-EPMC8634227 | biostudies-literature