Socioeconomic Indicators of Treatment Prognosis for Adults With Depression: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Importance: Socioeconomic factors are associated with the prevalence of depression, but their associations with prognosis are unknown. Understanding this association would aid in the clinical management of depression. Objective: To determine whether employment status, financial strain, housing status, and educational attainment inform prognosis for adults treated for depression in primary care, independent of treatment and after accounting for clinical prognostic factors. Data Sources: The Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane (CENTRAL) databases were searched from database inception to October 8, 2021. Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized clinical trials that used the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R; the most common comprehensive screening and diagnostic measure of depressive and anxiety symptoms in primary care randomized clinical trials), measured socioeconomic factors at baseline, and sampled patients with unipolar depression who sought treatment for depression from general physicians/practitioners or who scored 12 or more points on the CIS-R. Exclusion criteria included patients with depression secondary to a personality or psychotic disorder or neurologic condition, studies of bipolar or psychotic depression, studies that included children or adolescents, and feasibility studies. Studies were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria by 2 reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data were extracted and cleaned by data managers for each included study, further cleaned by multiple reviewers, and cross-checked by study chief investigators. Risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tools, respectively. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-Individual Participant Data (PRISMA-IPD) reporting guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Depressive symptoms at 3 to 4 months after baseline. Results: This systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis identified 9 eligible studies that provided individual patient data for 4864 patients (mean [SD] age, 42.5 (14.0) years; 3279 women [67.4%]). The 2-stage random-effects meta-analysis end point depressive symptom scale scores were 28% (95% CI, 20%-36%) higher for unemployed patients than for employed patients and 18% (95% CI, 6%-30%) lower for patients who were homeowners than for patients living with family or friends, in hostels, or homeless, which were equivalent to 4.2 points (95% CI, 3.6-6.2 points) and 2.9 points (95% CI, 1.1-4.9 points) on the Beck Depression Inventory II, respectively. Financial strain and educational attainment were associated with prognosis independent of treatment, but unlike employment and housing status, there was little evidence of associations after adjusting for clinical prognostic factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that unemployment was associated with a poor prognosis whereas home ownership was associated with improved prognosis. These differences were clinically important and independent of the type of treatment received. Interventions that address employment or housing difficulties could improve outcomes for patients with depression.

Advancing mental health equality: a mapping review of interventions, economic evaluations and barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: This work aimed to identify studies of interventions seeking to address mental health inequalities, studies assessing the economic impact of such interventions and factors which act as barriers and those that can facilitate interventions to address inequalities in mental health care. METHODS: A systematic mapping method was chosen. Studies were included if they: (1) focused on a population with: (a) mental health disorders, (b) protected or other characteristics putting them at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities; (2) addressed an intervention focused on addressing mental health inequalities; and (3) met criteria for one or more of three research questions: (i) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews reporting effectiveness findings for an intervention or interventions, (ii) studies reporting economic evaluation findings, (iii) primary research studies (any study design) or systematic reviews identifying or describing, potential barriers or facilitators to interventions. A bibliographic search of MEDLINE, HMIC, ASSIA, Social Policy & Practice, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and PsycINFO spanned January 2008 to December 2018. Study selection was performed according to inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and tabulated to map studies and summarise published research on mental health inequalities. A visual representation of the mapping review (a mapping diagram) is included. RESULTS: Overall, 128 studies met inclusion criteria: 115 primary studies and 13 systematic reviews. Of those, 94 looked at interventions, 6 at cost-effectiveness and 36 at barriers and facilitators. An existing taxonomy of disparities interventions was used and modified to categorise interventions by type and strategy. Most of the identified interventions focused on addressing socioeconomic factors, race disparities and age-related issues. The most frequently used intervention strategy was providing psychological support. Barriers and associated facilitators were categorised into groups including (not limited to) access to care, communication issues and financial constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The mapping review was useful in assessing the spread of literature and identifying highly researched areas versus prominent gaps. The findings are useful for clinicians, commissioners and service providers seeking to understand strategies to support the advancement of mental health equality for different populations and could be used to inform further research and support local decision-making. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not applicable.