RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Under detection of depression in primary care settings in low and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.03.20.20039628
DO 10.1101/2020.03.20.20039628
A1 Abebaw Fekadu
A1 Mekdes Demissie
A1 Rahel Berhane
A1 Girmay Medhin
A1 Teserra Bitew
A1 Maji Hailemariam
A1 Abebaw Minaye
A1 Kassahun Habtamu
A1 Barkot Milkias
A1 Inge Petersen
A1 Vikram Patel
A1 Anthony J Cleare
A1 Rosie Mayston
A1 Graham Thornicroft
A1 Atalay Alem
A1 Charlotte Hanlon
A1 Martin Prince
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/03/23/2020.03.20.20039628.abstract
AB Objective Depression is the commonest mental disorder in primary care but is poor identified. The objective of this review was to determine the level of detection of depression by primary care clinicians and its determinants in studies from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42016039704).Databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE, LILAC and AJOL.Quality assessment Risk of bias within studies evaluated with the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP).Synthesis “Gold standard” diagnosis for the purposes of this review were based on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9; cutoff scores of 5 and 10), structured interview or expert diagnosis. Meta-analysis was conducted excluding studies on special populations. Analysis of pooled data were stratified by diagnostic approaches.Results A total of 2223 non-duplicate publications were screened. Ten publications, from two multi-country studies and eight single country studies, making 18 country level reports, were included. One of the multi-country studies used an enriched sample of screen positive participants. Overall methodological quality of the studies was good. Depression detection was 0.0% in five reports and <12% in another five. The pooled detection for two reports that used PHQ-9 at a cutoff point of 5 (combined sample size = 1426) was 3.9% (95% CI = 2.3%, 5.5%); in the four reports that used PHQ-9 cutoff score of 10 (combined sample size =5481), the pooled detection was 7.0% (95% CI = 3.9%, 10.2%). For the enriched sample, the pooled detection was 43.5 % (95% CI: 25.7%, 61.0%). Severity of depression and suicidality were significantly associated with detection.Conclusions The extremely low detection of depression by primary care clinicians poses a serious threat to scaling up mental healthcare in LMICs. Interventions to improve detection should be prioritized.Strength and limitation of study▸ This is the first review of detection of depression in LMIC settings▸ The review was comprehensive in terms of databases searched▸ Screening tools were used as gold standards, which may lead to overestimation of prevalence and underestimation of detection▸ The small number of studies and the use of different instruments and cutoff▸ points precluded exploration of sources of heterogeneity▸ The review does not include studies on distress or sub-threshold depressionCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research is jointly funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordant agreement through the Africa Research Leader scheme (Grant Ref: MR/M025470/1).Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study