Search

Background: Because of wars, conflicts, persecutions, human rights violations, and humanitarian crises, about 84 million people are forcibly displaced around the world; the great majority of them live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). People living in humanitarian settings are affected by a constellation of stressors that threaten their mental health. Psychosocial interventions for people affected by humanitarian crises may be helpful to promote positive aspects of mental health, such as mental well-being, psychosocial functioning, coping, and quality of life. Previous reviews have focused on treatment and mixed promotion and prevention interventions. In this review, we focused on promotion of positive aspects of mental health., Objectives: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions aimed at promoting mental health versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and seven other databases to January 2023. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies, and checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychosocial interventions versus control conditions (no intervention, intervention as usual, or waiting list) to promote positive aspects of mental health in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure)., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were mental well-being, functioning, quality of life, resilience, coping, hope, and prosocial behaviour. The secondary outcome was acceptability, defined as the number of participants who dropped out of the trial for any reason. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for the outcomes of mental well-being, functioning, and prosocial behaviour., Main Results: We included 13 RCTs with 7917 participants. Nine RCTs were conducted on children/adolescents, and four on adults. All included interventions were delivered to groups of participants, mainly by paraprofessionals. Paraprofessional is defined as an individual who is not a mental or behavioural health service professional, but works at the first stage of contact with people who are seeking mental health care. Four RCTs were carried out in Lebanon; two in India; and single RCTs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Jordan, Haiti, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the occupied Palestinian Territories (oPT), Nepal, and Tanzania. The mean study duration was 18 weeks (minimum 10, maximum 32 weeks). Trials were generally funded by grants from academic institutions or non-governmental organisations. For children and adolescents, there was no clear difference between psychosocial interventions and control conditions in improving mental well-being and prosocial behaviour at study endpoint (mental well-being: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.29; 3 RCTs, 3378 participants; very low-certainty evidence; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 1633 participants; low-certainty evidence), or at medium-term follow-up (mental well-being: mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% CI -2.39 to 0.99; 1 RCT, 258 participants; prosocial behaviour: SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.80 to 0.83; 2 RCT, 483 participants; both very low-certainty evidence). Interventions may improve functioning (MD -2.18, 95% CI -3.86 to -0.50; 1 RCT, 183 participants), with sustained effects at follow-up (MD -3.33, 95% CI -5.03 to -1.63; 1 RCT, 183 participants), but evidence is very uncertain as the data came from one RCT (both very low-certainty evidence). Psychosocial interventions may improve mental well-being slightly in adults at study endpoint (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.44 to -0.14; 3 RCTs, 674 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they may have little to no effect at follow-up, as the evidence is uncertain and future RCTs might either confirm or disprove this finding. No RCTs measured the outcomes of functioning and prosocial behaviour in adults., Authors' Conclusions: To date, there is scant and inconclusive randomised evidence on the potential benefits of psychological and social interventions to promote mental health in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of studies included in the review, the small number of participants analysed, the risk of bias in the studies, and the substantial level of heterogeneity. Evidence on the efficacy of interventions on positive mental health outcomes is too scant to determine firm practice and policy implications. This review has identified a large gap between what is known and what still needs to be addressed in the research area of mental health promotion in humanitarian settings., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: People living in 'humanitarian settings' in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of physical and psychological stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. A range of psychological and social interventions have been implemented with the aim to prevent the onset of mental disorders and/or lower psychological distress in populations at risk, and it is not known whether interventions are effective., Objectives: To compare the efficacy and acceptability of psychological and social interventions versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at preventing the onset of non-psychotic mental disorders in people living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR), the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group (CDAG) Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), and ProQuest PILOTS database with results incorporated from searches to February 2020. We also searched the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological and social interventions versus control conditions to prevent the onset of mental disorders in adults and children living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises. We excluded studies that enrolled participants based on a positive diagnosis of mental disorder (or based on a proxy of scoring above a cut-off score on a screening measure)., Data Collection and Analysis: We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy) and at medium term (one to four months after intervention). No data were available at long term (six months or longer). We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence., Main Results: In the present review we included seven RCTs with a total of 2398 participants, coming from both children/adolescents (five RCTs), and adults (two RCTs). Together, the seven RCTs compared six different psychosocial interventions against a control comparator (waiting list in all studies). All the interventions were delivered by paraprofessionals and, with the exception of one study, delivered at a group level. None of the included studies provided data on the efficacy of interventions to prevent the onset of mental disorders (incidence). For the primary outcome of acceptability, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social interventions and control at endpoint for children and adolescents (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10; 5 studies, 1372 participants; low-quality evidence) or adults (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.50; 2 studies, 767 participants; very low quality evidence). No information on adverse events related to the interventions was available. For children's and adolescents' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, there may be no evidence of a difference between psychological and social intervention groups and control groups for reducing PTSD symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.18; 3 studies, 590 participants; very low quality evidence), depressive symptoms (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.31; 4 RCTs, 746 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.31; 3 studies, 632 participants; very low quality evidence) at study endpoint. In adults' secondary outcomes of prevention interventions, psychological counselling may be effective for reducing depressive symptoms (MD -7.50, 95% CI -9.19 to -5.81; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) and anxiety symptoms (MD -6.10, 95% CI -7.57 to -4.63; 1 study, 258 participants; very low quality evidence) at endpoint. No data were available for PTSD symptoms in the adult population. Owing to the small number of RCTs included in the present review, it was not possible to carry out neither sensitivity nor subgroup analyses., Authors' Conclusions: Of the seven prevention studies included in this review, none assessed whether prevention interventions reduced the incidence of mental disorders and there may be no evidence for any differences in acceptability. Additionally, for both child and adolescent populations and adult populations, a very small number of RCTs with low quality evidence on the review's secondary outcomes (changes in symptomatology at endpoint) did not suggest any beneficial effect for the studied prevention interventions. Confidence in the findings is hampered by the scarcity of prevention studies eligible for inclusion in the review, by risk of bias in the studies, and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. Moreover, it is possible that random error had a role in distorting results, and that a more thorough picture of the efficacy of prevention interventions will be provided by future studies. For this reason, prevention studies are urgently needed to assess the impact of interventions on the incidence of mental disorders in children and adults, with extended periods of follow-up., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: People living in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are exposed to a constellation of stressors that make them vulnerable to developing mental disorders. Mental disorders with a higher prevalence in these settings include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform (e.g. medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS)), and related disorders. A range of psychological therapies are used to manage symptoms of mental disorders in this population., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of psychological therapies versus control conditions (wait list, treatment as usual, attention placebo, psychological placebo, or no treatment) aimed at treating people with mental disorders (PTSD and major depressive, anxiety, somatoform, and related disorders) living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), and PsycINFO (OVID), with results incorporated from searches to 3 February 2016. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify any unpublished or ongoing studies. We checked the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing psychological therapies versus control conditions (including no treatment, usual care, wait list, attention placebo, and psychological placebo) to treat adults and children with mental disorders living in LMICs affected by humanitarian crises., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard Cochrane procedures for collecting data and evaluating risk of bias. We calculated standardised mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analysed data at endpoint (zero to four weeks after therapy); at medium term (one to four months after therapy); and at long term (six months or longer). GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety and withdrawal outcomes., Main Results: We included 36 studies (33 RCTs) with a total of 3523 participants. Included studies were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and Asia. Studies were implemented in response to armed conflicts; disasters triggered by natural hazards; and other types of humanitarian crises. Together, the 33 RCTs compared eight psychological treatments against a control comparator.Four studies included children and adolescents between 5 and 18 years of age. Three studies included mixed populations (two studies included participants between 12 and 25 years of age, and one study included participants between 16 and 65 years of age). Remaining studies included adult populations (18 years of age or older).Included trials compared a psychological therapy versus a control intervention (wait list in most studies; no treatment; treatment as usual). Psychological therapies were categorised mainly as cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) in 23 comparisons (including seven comparisons focused on narrative exposure therapy (NET), two focused on common elements treatment approach (CETA), and one focused on brief behavioural activation treatment (BA)); eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) in two comparisons; interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) in three comparisons; thought field therapy (TFT) in three comparisons; and trauma or general supportive counselling in two comparisons. Although interventions were described under these categories, several psychotherapeutic elements were common to a range of therapies (i.e. psychoeducation, coping skills).In adults, psychological therapies may substantially reduce endpoint PTSD symptoms compared to control conditions (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.34 to -0.79; 1272 participants; 16 studies; low-quality evidence). The effect is smaller at one to four months (SMD -0.49, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.31; 1660 participants; 18 studies) and at six months (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.14; 400 participants; five studies). Psychological therapies may also substantially reduce endpoint depression symptoms compared to control conditions (SMD -0.86, 95% CI -1.06 to -0.67; 1254 participants; 14 studies; low-quality evidence). Similar to PTSD symptoms, follow-up data at one to four months showed a smaller effect on depression (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.21; 1386 participants; 16 studies). Psychological therapies may moderately reduce anxiety at endpoint (SMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.49; 694 participants; five studies; low-quality evidence) and at one to four months' follow-up after treatment (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.39; 969 participants; seven studies). Dropout rates are probably similar between study conditions (19.5% with control versus 19.1% with psychological therapy (RR 0.98 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16; 2930 participants; 23 studies, moderate quality evidence)).In children and adolescents, we found very low quality evidence for lower endpoint PTSD symptoms scores in psychotherapy conditions (CBT) compared to control conditions, although the confidence interval is wide (SMD -1.56, 95% CI -3.13 to 0.01; 130 participants; three studies;). No RCTs provided data on major depression or anxiety in children. The effect on withdrawal was uncertain (RR 1.87 95% CI 0.47 to 7.47; 138 participants; 3 studies, low quality evidence).We did not identify any studies that evaluated psychological treatments on (symptoms of) somatoform disorders or MUPS in LMIC humanitarian settings., Authors' Conclusions: There is low quality evidence that psychological therapies have large or moderate effects in reducing PTSD, depressive, and anxiety symptoms in adults living in humanitarian settings in LMICs. By one to four month and six month follow-up assessments treatment effects were smaller. Fewer trials were focused on children and adolescents and they provide very low quality evidence of a beneficial effect of psychological therapies in reducing PTSD symptoms at endpoint. Confidence in these findings is influenced by the risk of bias in the studies and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. More research evidence is needed, particularly for children and adolescents over longer periods of follow-up.

Background: Paroxetine is the most potent inhibitor of the reuptake of serotonin of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, these comparative studies provided contrasting findings and systematic reviews of RCTs have always considered the SSRIs as a group, and evidence applicable to this group of drugs might not be applicable to paroxetine alone. The present systematic review assessed the efficacy and tolerability profile of paroxetine in comparison with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs and newer or non-conventional agents., Objectives: 1. To determine the efficacy of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents in alleviating the acute symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder.2. To review acceptability of treatment with paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents.3. To investigate the adverse effects of paroxetine in comparison with other anti-depressive agents., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group's Specialized Register (CCDANCTR, to 30 September 2012), which includes relevant randomised controlled trials from the following bibliographic databases: The Cochrane Library (all years), EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. Pharmaceutical companies marketing paroxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data., Selection Criteria: All randomised controlled trials allocating participants with major depression to paroxetine versus any other antidepressants (ADs), both conventional (such as TCAs, SSRIs) and newer or non-conventional (such as hypericum). For trials which had a cross-over design, only results from the first randomisation period were considered., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently checked eligibility and extracted data using a standard form. Data were then entered in RevMan 5.2 with a double-entry procedure. Information extracted included study and participant characteristics, intervention details, settings and efficacy, acceptability and tolerability measures., Main Results: A total of 115 randomised controlled trials (26,134 participants) were included. In 54 studies paroxetine was compared with older ADs, in 21 studies with another SSRI, and in 40 studies with a newer or non-conventional antidepressant other than SSRIs. For the primary outcome (patients who responded to treatment), paroxetine was more effective than reboxetine at increasing patients who responded early to treatment (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.66, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.87, number needed to treat to provide benefit (NNTb) = 16, 95% CI 10 to 50, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 1375 participants, moderate quality of evidence), and less effective than mirtazapine (OR: 2.39, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.02, NNTb = 8, 95% CI 5 to 14, at one to four weeks, 3 RCTs, 726 participants, moderate quality of evidence). Paroxetine was less effective than citalopram in improving response to treatment (OR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.28, NNTb = 9, 95% CI 5 to 102, at six to 12 weeks, 1 RCT, 406 participants, moderate quality of evidence). We found no clear evidence that paroxetine was more or less effective compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at acute (six to 12 weeks), early (one to four weeks), or longer term follow-up (four to six months). Paroxetine was associated with a lower rate of adverse events than amitriptyline, imipramine and older ADs as a class, but was less well tolerated than agomelatine and hypericum. Included studies were generally at unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting of allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessment, and incomplete reporting of outcomes., Authors' Conclusions: Some possibly clinically meaningful differences between paroxetine and other ADs exist, but no definitive conclusions can be drawn from these findings. In terms of response, there was a moderate quality of evidence that citalopram was better than paroxetine in the acute phase (six to 12 weeks), although only one study contributed data. In terms of early response to treatment (one to four weeks) there was moderate quality of evidence that mirtazapine was better than paroxetine and that paroxetine was better than reboxetine. However there was no clear evidence that paroxetine was better or worse compared with other antidepressants at increasing response to treatment at any time point. Even if some differences were identified, the findings from this review are better thought as hypothesis forming rather than hypothesis testing and it would be reassuring to see the conclusions replicated in future trials. Finally, most of included studies were at unclear or high risk of bias, and were sponsored by the drug industry. The potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be borne in mind.

Background: Depression is common in primary care and is associated with marked personal, social and economic morbidity, thus creating significant demands on service providers. The antidepressant fluoxetine has been studied in many randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in comparison with other conventional and unconventional antidepressants. However, these studies have produced conflicting findings.Other systematic reviews have considered selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs) as a group which limits the applicability of the indings for fluoxetine alone. Therefore, this review intends to provide specific and clinically useful information regarding the effects of fluoxetine for depression compared with tricyclics (TCAs), SSRIs, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), monoamineoxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and newer agents, and other conventional and unconventional agents., Objectives: To assess the effects of fluoxetine in comparison with all other antidepressive agents for depression in adult individuals with unipolar major depressive disorder., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Controlled Trials Register (CCDANCTR)to 11May 2012. This register includes relevant RCTs from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (all years),MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date) and PsycINFO (1967 to date). No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant papers and previous systematic reviews were handsearched. The pharmaceutical company marketing fluoxetine and experts in this field were contacted for supplemental data., Selection Criteria: All RCTs comparing fluoxetine with any other AD (including non-conventional agents such as hypericum) for patients with unipolar major depressive disorder (regardless of the diagnostic criteria used) were included. For trials that had a cross-over design only results from the first randomisation period were considered., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were independently extracted by two review authors using a standard form. Responders to treatment were calculated on an intention-to-treat basis: dropouts were always included in this analysis. When data on dropouts were carried forward and included in the efficacy evaluation, they were analysed according to the primary studies; when dropouts were excluded from any assessment in the primary studies, they were considered as treatment failures. Scores from continuous outcomes were analysed by including patients with a final assessment or with the last observation carried forward. Tolerability data were analysed by calculating the proportion of patients who failed to complete the study due to any causes and due to side effects or inefficacy. For dichotomous data, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Continuous data were analysed using standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI., Main Results: A total of 171 studies were included in the analysis (24,868 participants). The included studies were undertaken between 1984 and 2012. Studies had homogenous characteristics in terms of design, intervention and outcome measures. The assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool revealed that the great majority of them failed to report methodological details, like the method of random sequence generation, the allocation concealment and blinding. Moreover, most of the included studies were sponsored by drug companies, so the potential for overestimation of treatment effect due to sponsorship bias should be considered in interpreting the results. Fluoxetine was as effective as the TCAs when considered as a group both on a dichotomous outcome (reduction of at least 50% on the Hamilton Depression Scale) (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, 24 RCTs, 2124 participants) and a continuous outcome (mean scores at the end of the trial or change score on depression measures) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.14, 50 RCTs, 3393 participants). On a dichotomousoutcome, fluoxetine was less effective than dothiepin or dosulepin (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.20; number needed to treat (NNT) =6, 95% CI 3 to 50, 2 RCTs, 144 participants), sertraline (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.74; NNT = 13, 95% CI 7 to 58, 6 RCTs, 1188 participants), mirtazapine (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.04; NNT = 12, 95% CI 6 to 134, 4 RCTs, 600 participants) and venlafaxine(OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.51; NNT = 11, 95% CI 8 to 16, 12 RCTs, 3387 participants). On a continuous outcome, fluoxetine was more effective than ABT-200 (SMD -1.85, 95% CI -2.25 to -1.45, 1 RCT, 141 participants) and milnacipran (SMD -0.36, 95% CI-0.63 to -0.08, 2 RCTs, 213 participants); conversely, it was less effective than venlafaxine (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0 to 0.19, 13 RCTs,3097 participants). Fluoxetine was better tolerated than TCAs considered as a group (total dropout OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.96;NNT = 20, 95% CI 13 to 48, 49 RCTs, 4194 participants) and was better tolerated in comparison with individual ADs, in particular amitriptyline (total dropout OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85; NNT = 13, 95% CI 8 to 39, 18 RCTs, 1089 participants), and among the newer ADs ABT-200 (total dropout OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 144 participants), pramipexole(total dropout OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42, NNT = 3, 95% CI 2 to 5, 1 RCT, 105 participants), and reboxetine (total dropout OR0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82, NNT = 9, 95% CI 6 to 24, 4 RCTs, 764 participants)., Authors' Conclusions: The present study detected differences in terms of efficacy and tolerability between fluoxetine and certain ADs, but the clinical meaning of these differences is uncertain.Moreover, the assessment of quality with the risk of bias tool showed that the great majority of included studies failed to report details on methodological procedures. Of consequence, no definitive implications can be drawn from the studies' results. The better efficacy profile of sertraline and venlafaxine (and possibly other ADs) over fluoxetine may be clinically meaningful,as already suggested by other systematic reviews. In addition to efficacy data, treatment decisions should also be based on considerations of drug toxicity, patient acceptability and cost.