Prevalence and associated factors of depression in Sri Lanka: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Epidemiological data on depression are required to inform policies and service planning in mental health in Sri Lanka. This review aimed to synthesise data from existing studies to calculate the pooled prevalence of depression in Sri Lanka, assess its variability across subgroups, and identify associated factors within each subgroup. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Science Direct, Google Scholar and local journals were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies reporting the prevalence of depression among non-clinical adult, young, older, and maternal populations in Sri Lanka. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to calculate pooled prevalence estimates. Subgroup, sensitivity and moderator analyses were performed. A qualitative synthesis of factors associated with depression was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies representing a total of 52,778 participants were included. Overall, the pooled prevalence of depression was 19.4% [14.44-25.54%]. Among subpopulations, the highest prevalence was reported among young persons (39%); the rates in adults, older persons and maternal populations were 8.7%, 18.4% and 16.9%, respectively. Prevalence estimates were higher when based on screening instruments (21.2%) compared to diagnostic interviews (4.3%). A high degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 99.2) was observed. A qualitative synthesis of factors associated with depression, including individual attributes and behaviours, socio-economic circumstances and broader environmental factors, is reported for each age group. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-fifth of the population was detected to have depression. Notable variations in prevalence were observed across age groups. The heterogeneity of studies limits the inferences drawn from this review.

Morbidity profile and pharmaceutical management of adult outpatients between primary and tertiary care levels in Sri Lanka: a dual-centre, comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient care is central to both primary and tertiary levels in a health system. However, evidence is limited on outpatient differences between these levels, especially in South Asia. This study aimed to describe and compare the morbidity profile (presenting morbidities, comorbidities, multimorbidity) and pharmaceutical management (patterns, indicators) of adult outpatients between a primary and tertiary care outpatient department (OPD) in Sri Lanka. METHODS: A comparative study was conducted by recruiting 737 adult outpatients visiting a primary care and a tertiary care facility in the Kandy district. A self-administered questionnaire and a data sheet were used to collect outpatient and prescription data. Following standard categorisations, Chi-square tests and Mann‒Whitney U tests were employed for comparisons. RESULTS: Outpatient cohorts were predominated by females and middle-aged individuals. The median duration of presenting symptoms was higher in tertiary care OPD (10 days, interquartile range: 57) than in primary care (3 days, interquartile range: 12). The most common systemic complaint in primary care OPD was respiratory symptoms (32.4%), whereas it was dermatological symptoms (30.2%) in tertiary care. The self-reported prevalence of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) was 37.9% (95% CI: 33.2-42.8) in tertiary care OPD and 33.2% (95% CI: 28.5-38.3) in primary care; individual disease differences were significant only for diabetes (19.7% vs. 12.8%). The multimorbidity in tertiary care OPD was 19.0% (95% CI: 15.3-23.1), while it was 15.9% (95% CI: 12.4-20.0) in primary care. Medicines per encounter at primary care OPD (3.86, 95% CI: 3.73-3.99) was higher than that at tertiary care (3.47, 95% CI: 3.31-3.63). Medicines per encounter were highest for constitutional and respiratory symptoms in both settings. Overall prescribing of corticosteroids (62.7%), vitamin supplements (45.8%), anti-allergic (55.3%) and anti-asthmatic (31.3%) drugs was higher in the primary care OPD, and the two former drugs did not match the morbidity profile. The proportion of antibiotics prescribed did not differ significantly between OPDs. Subgroup analyses of drug categories by morbidity largely followed these overall differences. CONCLUSIONS: The morbidities between primary and tertiary care OPDs differed in duration and type but not in terms of multimorbidity or most comorbidities. Pharmaceutical management also varied in terms of medicines per encounter and prescribed categories. This evidence supports planning in healthcare and provides directions for future research in primary care.