Reducing the stigma of mental health disorders with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.

Mental health disorders are a burgeoning global public health challenge, and disproportionately affect the poor. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear 80 % of the mental health disease burden. Stigma associated with mental health results in delayed help seeking, reduced access to health services, suboptimal treatment, poor outcomes and an increased risk of individuals' human rights violations. Moreover, widespread co-occurrence of physical comorbidities such as noncommunicable diseases with mental health disorders makes the treatment of both conditions challenging and worsens prognosis. This paper explores various aspects of stigma towards mental health with a focus on LMICs and assesses measures to increase help-seeking and access to and uptake of mental health services. Stigma impacts persons living with mental illness, their families and caregivers and healthcare professionals (mental health professionals, non-psychiatric specialists and general practitioners) imparting mental health care. Cultural, socio-economic and religious factors determine various aspects of mental health in LMICs, ranging from perceptions of health and illness, health seeking behavior, attitudes of the individuals and health practitioners and mental health systems. Addressing stigma requires comprehensive and inclusive mental health policies and legislations; sustainable and culturally-adapted awareness programs; capacity building of mental health workforce through task-shifting and interprofessional approaches; and improved access to mental health services by integration with primary healthcare and utilizing existing pathways of care. Future strategies targeting stigma reduction must consider the enormous physical comorbidity burden associated with mental health, prioritize workplace interventions and importantly, address the deterioration of population mental health from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jornada do paciente com lombalgia crônica no Brasil: uma revisão semi-sistemática sobre a melhor abordagem / Patient journey for those with chronic low back pain in Brazil: a semi-systematic review on the best approach

Histórico -O tratamento de pacientes com lombalgia crônica (LC) em muitos países, incluindo o Brasil, é um grande desafio no nível de atendimento primário e especializado. Além disso, as informações sobre epidemiologia e tratamento de pacientes com LC são escassas. O objetivo principal desta revisão semi-sistemática foi a construção de evidências locais sobre a prevalência e o padrão de tratamento da LC. Métodos: Esta revisão semi-sistemática utilizou Medline, Embase e Biosis via plataforma Ovid e recursos adicionais (Google, Google Scholar, Banco de dados de incidência e prevalência, Organização Mundial da Saúde, Ministério da Saúde do Brasil e informações anedóticas de especialistas locais) para identificar literatura relevante entre 2002 e 2020 para mapear a jornada do paciente. Artigos de texto completos e originais do Brasil em inglês contendo dados sobre pontos de contato predefinidos na jornada do paciente (conscientização, triagem, diagnóstico, tratamento, adesão e controle) foram selecionados. Os dados foram obtidos usando uma média simples ou ponderada, conforme aplicável para os componentes da jornada do paciente. Resultados: De 297 registros, incluindo os fornecidos por especialistas locais, oito estudos foram incluídos para análise. A conscientização da LC e da LC-NeP foi de 30,4% e 12%, respetivamente. De acordo com estudos publicados, a adesão e o controle dos sintomas dos pacientes foram estimados com percentual semelhante de 38% e 18%, respetivamente para a LC e a LC-NeP. A prevalência de LC-NeP (3,6%) foi menor que a de LC (20,6%). Com exceção de uma porcentagem comparável da população tratada, para LC (39,1%) e LC-NeP (38%), a porcentagem de pontos de contato restantes foi maior no caso de LC do que no LC-NeP, o que implicava uma melhora no trajeto do paciente para a LC. Conclusão: O estudo destaca a necessidade de melhorar os resultados dos pacientes em nível nacional, medindo esses pontos de contato da jornada do paciente. O resultado deste estudo baseado em evidências é importante para preencher a lacuna de conhecimento do paciente com LC. Portanto, recomenda-se garantir a educação médica contínua, a conscientização do paciente e a restruturação do sistema de saúde brasileiro, ao mesmo tempo em que adota novas práticas sobre o gerenciamento da dor. [au]

Background: Managing patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) in many countries, including Brazil, is a major challenge at the primary and specialty care level. Moreover, the information about epidemiology and patient management with CLBP is sparse. The primary objective of this semi-systematic review was to build local evidence about the prevalence and management pattern of CLBP. Methods: This semi-systematic review used Medline, Embase, and Biosis via Ovid the platform and additional resources (Google, Google Scholar, Incidence and Prevalence Database, World Health Organization, Brazilian Ministry of Health, and anecdotal information from local experts) to identify relevant literature between 2002­2020 to map the patient journey. Original full-text articles from Brazil in English containing data on pre-defined patient journey touchpoints (awareness, screening, diagnosis, treatment, adherence, and control) were screened. Data were synthesized using a simple or weighted mean, as applicable for patient journey components. Results. Of 297 records including those provided by local experts, eight studies were included for analysis. Awareness of CLBP and CLBP-NeP was 30.4% and 12%, respectively. According to published studies, adherence and symptoms control of patients was estimated with a similar percentage of 38% and 18%, respectively for CLBP and CLBP-NeP. CLBP-NeP prevalence (3.6%) was lower than that of CLBP (20.6%). Except for a comparable percentage of the treated population, for CLBP (39.1%) and CLBP-NeP (38%), the percentage of remaining touchpoints are higher in the case of CLBP than in CLBP-NeP, implying an improved patient journey for CLBP. Conclusion: The study highlights the usefulness to improve patient outcomes at the national level by measuring these mapping patient journey touchpoints. The outcome of this evidence-based study was fruitful to bridges the know-do gap in CLBP patients. Therefore, it is recommended to ensure continuing medical education, patient awareness, and health system preparedness while embracing the emerging insights on pain management. [au]