Dataset Information

Prevalence of common mental disorders in adult Syrian refugees resettled in high income Western countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The immense social upheaval and ongoing humanitarian crisis created by the 2011 war in Syria has forced millions of civilians to flee their homeland, many of whom seek refugee status in Western nations. Whilst it is known that the prevalence of mental illness is higher within refugee populations, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to pool the prevalence rates of common mental disorders (namely posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and generalized anxiety disorder) in adult Syrian refugees resettled in high income Western countries.

Methods

Seven electronic databases (Medline, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PTSDpubs, SCOPUS, PubMed and Embase) were searched up to the 31st of December 2020. Using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant articles were screened by title and abstract, and later by full text. A meta-analysis was used to estimate the prevalence rates for each mental illness.

Results

Eleven studies met the eligibility criteria for the systematic review. Nine of these studies had a low-moderate risk of bias and were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 4873 refugees included in the meta-analysis, the total pooled prevalence rate of having any of the three mental disorders was 33% (CI 95%, 27-40%), 40% for anxiety (CI 95%, 31-50%), 31% for depression (CI 95%, 20-44%) and 31% for PTSD (CI 95%, 22-41%). A meta-regression revealed that the total pooled prevalence rate for having any of the three mental disorders was not influenced by age, host country, duration in host country, educational or marital status.

Conclusions

Despite significant study heterogeneity, the prevalence rates of common mental disorders in adult Syrian refugees resettled in high-income Western countries are significantly higher than reported rates in the general population.

SUBMITTER: Nguyen TP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8729124 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMounting evidence is revealing disparities in cognitive function and heightened dementia risk among refugees, yet research in this area remains scant. Despite bearing most of the world's refugee burden, limited-resource countries like Jordan are facing challenges when dealing with refugee health. There is a lack of research on the attitudes toward dementia and the cognitive healthcare gaps among refugees in Jordan.Methods32 older (≥ 55 years) Syrian refugees resettled in Jordan were recruited through a local community-based organization and interviewed in four focus groups (2 female and 2 male groups). Interviews were transcribed and translated, then coded using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsMean age of the sample was 60.1 years and 53.1% were female. Only 34.4% rated their memory as good or excellent. Themes were organized using the socioecological model: 1) At the individual level, participants believed high levels of stress, including low socioeconomic status, poor health, and traumatic history from their refugee experience increased their dementia risk. 2) Interpersonally, there is a fear of dementia due to the possible impact and burden on loved ones, particularly with the stigma surrounding dementia. 3) At the community level, participants noted that resettlement in Jordan - with a shared language, religion, and culture - offered protective effects due to facilitated access to social connection, information, and mental health self-care. 4) At the institution and policy level, participants believed older refugees faced restrictive policies for economic aid, healthcare, and employment, presenting a significant barrier to healthy aging.ConclusionsFindings from this study are the first to examine the attitudes of Syrian refugees in Jordan toward dementia and cognitive aging. These results could provide essential data inclusive of refugees as Jordan develops its National Dementia Plan. Investing in dementia awareness interventions and age-friendly neighborhoods may benefit aging refugees in limited-resources settings.

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."