Research evaluating the effectiveness of dementia interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic mapping of 340 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: More people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries, but best-practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high-income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008-2018. Over two-thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence-generation for LMICs.

A systematic review of evidence-based interventions for child and adolescent mental health problems in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for mental health problems in childhood and adolescence have advanced in the last 15 years. Despite advances in research, most of the evidence on effective interventions comes from high-income countries, while evidence is scarce in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where 90% of world's children and adolescents live. The aim of this review was to identify evidence-based interventions tested in LMICs to treat or prevent child and adolescent mental health problems. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of seven major electronic databases, from January 2007 to July 2019. We included randomised or non-randomised clinical trials that evaluated interventions for children or adolescents aged 6 to 18 years living in LMICs and who had, or were at risk of developing, one or more mental health problems. Results were grouped according to the studied conditions. Due to the heterogeneity of conditions, interventions and outcomes, we performed a narrative synthesis. The review was registered at PROSPERO under the number CRD42019129376. FINDINGS: Of 127,466 references found through our search strategy, 107 studies were included in narrative synthesis after the eligibility verification processes. Nineteen different conditions and nine types of interventions were addressed by studies included in the review. Over 1/3 of studied interventions were superior to comparators, with psychoeducation and psychotherapy having the highest proportion of positive results. One-third of studies were classified as presenting low risk of bias. INTERPRETATION: This review shows that different interventions have been effective in LMICs and have the potential to close the mental health care gap among children and adolescents in low-resource settings.

Effective/cost effective interventions of child mental health problems in low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC): Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review protocol aims to examine the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for children and adolescents with, or at risk of developing mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs). METHODS: We will search Medline Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, CINAHL, LILACS, BDENF and IBECS. We will include randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, economic modelling studies and economic evaluations. Participants are 6 to 18 year-old children and adolescents who live in a LAMIC and who present with, or are at high risk of developing, one or more of the conditions: depression, anxiety, behavioural disorders, eating disorders, psychosis, substance abuse, autism and intellectual disabilities as defined by the DSM-V. Interventions which address suicide, self-harm will also be included, if identified during the extraction process. We will include in person or e-health interventions which have some evidence of effectiveness (in relation to clinical and/or functional outcomes) and which have been delivered to young people in LAMICs. We will consider a wide range of delivery channels (e.g., in person, web-based or virtual, phone), different practitioners (healthcare practitioners, teachers, lay health care providers) and sectors (i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary health care, education, guardianship councils). In the pilot of screening procedures, 5% of all references will be screened by two reviewers. Divergences will be resolved by one expert in mental health research. Reviewers will be retrained afterwards to ensure reliability. The remaining 95% will be screened by one reviewer. Covidence web-based tool will be used to perform screening of references and full text paper, and data extraction. RESULTS: The protocol of this systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results will be presented descriptively and, if possible, meta-analysis will be conducted. Ethical approval is not needed for anonymised secondary data. CONCLUSION: the systematic review could help health specialists and other professionals to identify evidence-based strategies to deal with child and adolescents with mental health conditions.

Effectiveness of interventions for dementia in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There are more people living with dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries. Evidence-based interventions to improve the lives of people living with dementia and their carers are needed, but a systematic mapping of methodologically robust studies in LMICs and synthesis of the effectiveness of dementia interventions in these settings is missing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted to answer the question: Which dementia interventions were shown to be effective in LMICs and how do they compare to each other? Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be complemented by hand searching of reference lists and local knowledge of existing studies from an international network of researchers in dementia from LMICs. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they were published between 2008 and 2018, conducted in LMICs and evaluated the effectiveness of a dementia intervention using a study design that supports causal inference of the treatment effect. We will include both randomised and non-randomised studies due to an anticipated low number of well-conducted randomised trials in LMICs and potentially greater external validity of non-randomised studies conducted in routine care settings. In addition to narrative synthesis of the interventions, feasibility of pairwise and network meta-analyses will be explored to obtain pooled effects of relative treatment effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Secondary analysis of published studies, therefore no ethics approval required. Planned dissemination channels include a peer-reviewed publication as well as a website, DVD and evidence summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106206.

Systematic literature review of methodologies and data sources of existing economic models across the full spectrum of Alzheimer's disease and dementia from apparently healthy through disease progression to end of life care: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges the world will face in the coming decades, as it is one of the principal causes of disability and dependency among older people. Economic modelling is used widely across many health conditions to inform decisions on health and social care policy and practice. The aim of this literature review is to systematically identify, review and critically evaluate existing health economics models in dementia. We included the full spectrum of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), from preclinical stages through to severe dementia and end of life. This review forms part of the Real world Outcomes across the Alzheimer's Disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data Access Platform (ROADMAP) project. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Electronic searches were conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Economic Literature Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Science Citation Index, Turning Research Into Practice and Open Grey for studies published between January 2000 and the end of June 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study against predefined eligibility criteria. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreement. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed using the Phillips checklist for decision analytic modelling. A narrative synthesis will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be made available in a scientific peer-reviewed journal paper, will be presented at relevant conferences and will also be made available through the ROADMAP project. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017073874.