A rapid evidence assessment exploring whether antimicrobial resistance complicates non-infectious health conditions and healthcare services, 2010-20.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is one of the greatest public health threats at this time. While there is a good understanding of the impacts of AMR on infectious diseases, an area of less focus is the effects AMR may be having on non-communicable health conditions (such as cancer) and healthcare services (such as surgery). Therefore, this study aimed to explore what impact AMR is currently having on non-communicable health conditions, or areas of health services, where AMR could be a complicating factor impacting on the ability to treat the condition and/or health outcomes. To do this, a rapid evidence assessment of the literature was conducted, involving a systematic approach to searching and reviewing the evidence. In total, 101 studies were reviewed covering surgery, organ transplants, cancer, ICUs, diabetes, paediatric patients, immunodeficiency conditions, liver and kidney disease, and physical trauma. The results showed limited research in this area and studies often use a selective population, making the results difficult to generalize. However, the evidence showed that for all health conditions and healthcare service areas reviewed, at least one study demonstrated a higher risk of death for patients with resistant infections, compared with no or drug-susceptible infections. Poor health outcomes were also associated with resistant infections in some instances, such as severe sepsis and failure of treatments, as well as a greater need for invasive medical support. While there are gaps in the evidence base requiring further research, efforts are also needed within policy and practice to better understand and overcome these challenges.

The worldwide costs of dementia 2015 and comparisons with 2010.

INTRODUCTION: In 2010, Alzheimer's Disease International presented estimates of the global cost of illness (COI) of dementia. Since then, new studies have been conducted, and the number of people with dementia has increased. Here, we present an update of the global cost estimates. METHODS: This is a societal, prevalence-based global COI study. RESULTS: The worldwide costs of dementia were estimated at United States (US) $818 billion in 2015, an increase of 35% since 2010; 86% of the costs occur in high-income countries. Costs of informal care and the direct costs of social care still contribute similar proportions of total costs, whereas the costs in the medical sector are much lower. The threshold of US $1 trillion will be crossed by 2018. DISCUSSION: Worldwide costs of dementia are enormous and still inequitably distributed. The increase in costs arises from increases in numbers of people with dementia and in increases in per person costs.

Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

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.