AIM: to assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions delivered through task-sharing approaches for preventing perinatal common mental disorders among women in low- and middle-income countries.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following a prespecified protocol registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/qt4y3). We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through June 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 24,442 participants. At post-intervention, task-shared psychosocial interventions, were effective in preventing the development of mental disorders in general (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), and specifically depression (RR 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.75]), but not anxiety disorders (RR 0.46, 95% CI [0.06, 3.33]). Similarly, psychosocial interventions reduced psychological distress (SMD -1.32, 95% CI [-2.28, -0.35]), and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.50, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.16]), and increased parenting self-efficacy (SMD -0.76, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.38]) and social support (SMD -0.72, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.22]). No effect was detected for anxiety symptoms at post-intervention. At follow-up the beneficial effects of interventions progressively decreased.
CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial interventions delivered through the task-sharing modality are effective in preventing perinatal common mental disorders and fostering positive mental health among women in low- and middle-income countries. However, our findings are tentative, due to the low number of preventative intervention strategies considering outcomes as the incidence of mental disorders, especially in the long-term. This evidence supports calls to implement and scale up psychosocial prevention interventions for perinatal common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries.
BACKGROUND: Reducing maternal mortality, neonatal mortality and under 5-year mortality are important targets addressed by the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. Despite studies reported an improvement in maternal and child health indicators, the progress achieved is not uniform across regions. Due to the increasing availability of mobile phones in low and middle-income countries, mHealth could impact considerably on reducing maternal and child mortality and maximizing women's access to quality care, from the antenatal stage to the post-natal period.
METHODS: A systematic literature review of mHealth interventions aimed at reducing maternal and child mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia. Primary outcomes were maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, and under-five mortality. Secondary outcomes were skilled birth attendance, antenatal care (ANC) and post-natal care (PNC) attendance, and vaccination/immunization coverage. We searched for articles published from January 2010 to December 2020 in Embase, Medline and Web of Science. Quantitative comparative studies were included. The protocol was developed according to the PRISMA Checklist and published in PROSPERO [CRD42019109434]. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies was used to assess the quality of the eligible studies.
RESULTS: 23 studies were included in the review, 16 undertaken in Sub-Saharan Africa and 7 in Southern Asia. Most studies used SMS or voice message reminders for education purposes. Only two studies reported outcomes on neonatal mortality, with positive results. None of the studies reported results on maternal mortality or under-five mortality. Outcomes on skilled birth attendance, ANC attendance, PNC attendance, and vaccination coverage were reported in six, six, five, and eleven studies, respectively. Most of these studies showed a positive impact of mHealth interventions on the secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Simple mHealth educational interventions based on SMS and voice message reminders are effective at supporting behavior change of pregnant women and training of health workers, thus improving ANC and PNC attendance, vaccination coverage and skilled birth attendance. Higher quality studies addressing the role of mHealth in reducing maternal and child mortality in resource-limited settings are needed, especially in Southern Asia.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019109434, identifier CRD42019109434.
Weak delivery systems reduce the potential of evidence-supp orted interventions to improve nutrition. We synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of nutrition-specific intervention delivery platforms for improving nutrition outcomes in low and middle-income countries (LMIC). A systematic literature search for studies published from 1997 to June 2018 resulted in the inclusion of 83 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized, and controlled before-after studies across a variety of delivery platforms. In this paper, we report on meta-analysed outcomes for community health worker (CHW) home visits and mother/peer group delivery platforms. Compared to care as usual, CHW home visits increased early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.99; n = 10 RCTs) and exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) (OR: 4.42; 95% CI: 2.28, 8.56; n = 9 RCTs) and mother/peer groups were effective for improving children's minimum dietary diversity (OR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.17, 4.70; n = 4) and minimum meal frequency (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.61, 3.31; n = 3). Pooled estimates from studies using both home visit and group platforms showed positive results for EIBF (OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.12, 4.05; n = 9), EBF (OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.70, 3.46; n = 12), and < 5 wasting (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.67, 0.89; n = 4). Our findings underscore the importance of interpersonal community platforms for improving infant and young child feeding practices and children's nutritional status in LMICs.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this review was to determine the impact of mother-targeted mobile health (mHealth) educational interventions available during the perinatal period in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: There has been significant growth of mHealth projects in LMICs. The use of mHealth interventions across the perinatal period offers the ability to share information with mothers about essential newborn care and to encourage mothers to attend perinatal clinics to obtain additional in-person support as needed. The impact of perinatal mHealth educational interventions on maternal behavior change and early neonatal mortality and morbidity outcomes in LMICs is unknown.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies that included mHealth educational interventions targeting mothers living in LMICs during the antenatal or postnatal period using mobile devices. The intervention must have been initiated during the antenatal period (conception through birth) through six weeks postnatally. All experimental study designs were included. Outcomes included maternal knowledge, maternal self-efficacy, antenatal/postnatal care attendance and newborn early morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL were searched on March 19, 2018 for studies published in English. The search was updated on June 7, 2018. Critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by two reviewers using a standardized data extraction tool. All conflicts were resolved through consensus with a third reviewer. Quantitative data were, where possible, pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were reported narratively.
RESULTS: A total of 1514 articles were screened, and 71 full-text papers were assessed for eligibility, with 23 articles critically appraised. Following appraisal, three articles were excluded due to poor quality. Of the 20 articles included, 16 were peer reviewed articles and four were gray literature reports. Eight papers targeted antenatal education, eight covered postnatal education and four covered both antenatal and postnatal education. Studies varied in terms of design, country, approach, frequency and content. Mothers who received an mHealth intervention attended a significantly greater number of antenatal care contacts (mean difference = 0.67, 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.99, P = 0.0001) and were significantly more likely to have at least one postnatal care contact between six and eight weeks (odds ratio = 1.36, 95% confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.85, P = 0.05). Maternal knowledge, self-efficacy and neonatal mortality and morbidity were inconsistently reported across studies.
CONCLUSIONS: mHealth education interventions are associated with increased maternal contact antenatally and postnatally in LMICs. Due to heterogeneity of studies among country of implementation, approach, frequency and content of the mHealth interventions, the impact on other maternal and neonatal outcomes is inconclusive. Future work using mHealth to target maternal education during the perinatal period should focus on standardization of content and outcome evaluations.
BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of practical knowledge and effective interventions required to reduce priority health problems in low-income countries, poor and vulnerable populations are often not reached. One possible solution to this problem is the use of Community or Lay Health Workers (CLHWs). So far, however, the development of sustainability in CLHW programs has failed and high attrition rates continue to pose a challenge. We propose that the roles and interests which support community health work should emerge directly from the way in which health is organized at community level. This review explores the evidence available to assess if increased levels of integration of community health resources in CLHW programs indeed lead to higher program effectiveness and sustainability.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: This review includes peer-reviewed articles which meet three eligibility criteria: 1) specific focus on CLHWs or equivalent; 2) randomized, quasi-randomized, before/after methodology or substantial descriptive assessment; and 3) description of a community or peer intervention health program located in a low- or middle-income country. Literature searches using various article databases led to 2930 hits, of which 359 articles were classified. Of these, 32 articles were chosen for extensive review, complemented by analysis of the results of 15 other review studies. Analysis was conducted using an excel based data extraction form. Because results showed that no quantitative data was published, a descriptive synthesis was conducted. The review protocol was not proactively registered. Findings show minimal inclusion of even basic community level indicators, such as the degree to which the program is a community initiative, community input in the program or training, the background and history of CLHW recruits, and the role of the community in motivation and retention. Results show that of the 32 studies, only one includes one statistical measure of community integration. As a result of this lack of data we are unable to derive an evidence-based conclusion to our propositions. Instead, our results indicate a larger problem, namely the complete absence of indicators measuring community relationships with the programs studied. Studies pay attention only to gender and peer roles, along with limited demographic information about the recruits. The historicity of the health worker and the community s/he belongs to is absent in most studies reviewed. None of the studies discuss or test for the possibility that motivation emanates from the community. Only a few studies situate attrition and retention as an issue enabled by the community. The results were limited by a focus on low-income countries and English, peer-reviewed published articles only.
CONCLUSION: Published, peer-reviewed studies evaluating the effectiveness and sustainability of CLHW interventions in health programs have not yet adequately tested for the potential of utilizing existing community health roles or social networks for the development of effective and sustainable (retentive) CLHW programs. Community relationships are generally seen as a "black box" represented by an interchangeable CLHW labor unit. This disconnect from community relationships and resources may have led to a systematic and chronic undervaluing of community agency in explanations of programmatic effectiveness and sustainability.
Background: Outpatient care facilities provide a variety of basic healthcare services to individuals who do not require hospitalisation or institutionalisation, and are usually the patient's first contact. The provision of outpatient care contributes to immediate and large gains in health status, and a large portion of total health expenditure goes to outpatient healthcare services. Payment method is one of the most important incentive methods applied by purchasers to guide the performance of outpatient care providers. Objectives: To assess the impact of different payment methods on the performance of outpatient care facilities and to analyse the differences in impact of payment methods in different settings. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2016, Issue 3, part of the Cochrane Library (searched 8 March 2016); MEDLINE, OvidSP (searched 8 March 2016); Embase, OvidSP (searched 24 April 2014); PubMed (NCBI) (searched 8 March 2016); Dissertations and Theses Database, ProQuest (searched 8 March 2016); Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (searched 8 March 2016); IDEAS (searched 8 March 2016); EconLit, ProQuest (searched 8 March 2016); POPLINE, K4Health (searched 8 March 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (searched 8 March 2016); Chinese Medicine Premier (searched 8 March 2016); OpenGrey (searched 8 March 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) (searched 8 March 2016); World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched 8 March 2016); and the website of the World Bank (searched 8 March 2016). In addition, we searched the reference lists of included studies and carried out a citation search for the included studies via ISI Web of Science to find other potentially relevant studies. We also contacted authors of the main included studies regarding any further published or unpublished work. Selection criteria: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, and repeated measures studies that compared different payment methods for outpatient health facilities. We defined outpatient care facilities in this review as facilities that provide health services to individuals who do not require hospitalisation or institutionalisation. We only included methods used to transfer funds from the purchaser of healthcare services to health facilities (including groups of individual professionals). These include global budgets, line-item budgets, capitation, fee-for-service (fixed and unconstrained), pay for performance, and mixed payment. The primary outcomes were service provision outcomes, patient outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes, costs for providers, and any adverse effects. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted a structured synthesis. We first categorised the comparisons and outcomes and then described the effects of different types of payment methods on different categories of outcomes. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis within a study if a study included more than one indicator in the same category of outcomes. We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis across studies. If the data for meta-analysis were not available in some studies, we calculated the median and interquartile range. We reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the relative change for continuous outcomes. Main results: We included 21 studies from Afghanistan, Burundi, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, and the United States of health facilities providing primary health care and mental health care. There were three kinds of payment comparisons. 1) Pay for performance (P4P) combined with some existing payment method (capitation or different kinds of input-based payment) compared to the existing payment method We included 18 studies in this comparison, however we did not include five studies in the effects analysis due to high risk of bias. From the 13 studies, we found that the extra P4P incentives probably slightly improved the health professionals' use of some tests and treatments (adjusted RR median = 1.095, range 1.01 to 1.17; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably led to little or no difference in adherence to quality assurance criteria (adjusted percentage change median = -1.345%, range -8.49% to 5.8%; moderate-certainty evidence). We also found that P4P incentives may have led to little or no difference in patients' utilisation of health services (adjusted RR median = 1.01, range 0.96 to 1.15; low-certainty evidence) and may have led to little or no difference in the control of blood pressure or cholesterol (adjusted RR = 1.01, range 0.98 to 1.04; low-certainty evidence). 2) Capitation combined with P4P compared to fee-for-service (FFS) One study found that compared with FFS, a capitated budget combined with payment based on providers' performance on antibiotic prescriptions and patient satisfaction probably slightly reduced antibiotic prescriptions in primary health facilities (adjusted RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence). 3) Capitation compared to FFS Two studies compared capitation to FFS in mental health centres in the United States. Based on these studies, the effects of capitation compared to FFS on the utilisation and costs of services were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: Our review found that if policymakers intend to apply P4P incentives to pay health facilities providing outpatient services, this intervention will probably lead to a slight improvement in health professionals' use of tests or treatments, particularly for chronic diseases. However, it may lead to little or no improvement in patients' utilisation of health services or health outcomes. When considering using P4P to improve the performance of health facilities, policymakers should carefully consider each component of their P4P design, including the choice of performance measures, the performance target, payment frequency, if there will be additional funding, whether the payment level is sufficient to change the behaviours of health providers, and whether the payment to facilities will be allocated to individual professionals. Unfortunately, the studies included in this review did not help to inform those considerations. Well-designed comparisons of different payment methods for outpatient health facilities in low- and middle-income countries and studies directly comparing different designs (e.g. different payment levels) of the same payment method (e.g. P4P or FFS) are needed.
BACKGROUND: From 1990 to 2015, the number of maternal deaths globally has dropped by 43%. Despite this, progress in attaining MDG 5 is not remarkable in LMICs. Only 52% of pregnant women in LMICs obtain WHO recommended minimum of four antenatal consultations and the coverage of postnatal care is relatively poor. In recent years, the increased cellphone penetration has brought the potential for mHealth to improve preventive maternal healthcare services. The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of mHealth solutions on a range of maternal health outcomes by categorizing the interventions according to the types of mHealth applications.
METHODS: Three international online electronic databases were searched between January 1, 2000 and January 25, 2016 to identify studies exploring the role of mHealth solutions in improving preventive maternal healthcare services. Of 1262 titles screened after duplication, 69 potentially relevant abstracts were obtained. Out of 69 abstracts, 42 abstracts were shortlisted. Full text of 42 articles was reviewed using data extraction sheet. A total of 14 full text studies were included in the final analysis.
RESULTS: The 14 final studies were categorized in to five mHealth applications defined in the conceptual framework. Based on our analysis, the most reported use of mHealth was for client education and behavior change communication, such as SMS and voice reminders [n = 9, 65%]. The categorization provided the understanding that much work have been done on client education and behavior change communication. Most of the studies showed that mHealth interventions have proven to be effective to improve antenatal care and postnatal care services, especially those that are aimed at changing behavior of pregnant women and women in postnatal period. However, little evidence exists on other type of mHealth applications.
CONCLUSION: This review suggests that mHealth solutions targeted at pregnant women and women in postnatal period can improve preventive maternal healthcare services. However, there is a need to conduct more controlled-trials and quasi-experimental studies to strengthen the literature in this research area. The review recommends that mHealth researchers, sponsors, and publishers should prioritize the transparent reporting of interventions to allow effective interpretation of extracted data.
BACKGROUND: Universal Health Coverage is widely endorsed as the pivotal goal in global health, however substantial barriers to accessing health services for children in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) exist. Failure to access healthcare is an important contributor to child mortality in these settings. Barriers to access have been widely studied, however effective interventions to overcome barriers and increase access to services for children are less well documented.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing access to health services for children aged 5 years and below in LMIC. Four databases (EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, and PSYCINFO) were searched in January 2016. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions that aimed to increase: health care utilisation; immunisation uptake; and compliance with medication or referral. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled study designs were included in the review. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results.
RESULTS: Fifty seven studies were included in the review. Approximately half of studies (49%) were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most studies were randomised controlled trials (n = 44; 77%) with the remaining studies employing non-randomised designs. Very few studies were judged as high quality. Studies evaluated a diverse range of interventions and various outcomes. Supply side interventions included: delivery of services at or closer to home and service level improvements (eg. integration of services). Demand side interventions included: educational programmes, text messages, and financial or other incentives. Interventions that delivered services at or closer to home and text messages were in general associated with a significant improvement in relevant outcomes. A consistent pattern was not noted for the remaining studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This review fills a gap in the literature by providing evidence of the range and effectiveness of interventions that can be used to increase access for children aged ≤5 years in LMIC. It highlights some intervention areas that seem to show encouraging trends including text message reminders and delivery of services at or close to home. However, given the methodological limitations found in existing studies, the results of this review must be interpreted with caution.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420160334200.
BACKGROUND: Many women living with HIV experience gendered power inequalities, particularly in their intimate relationships, that prevent them from achieving optimal sexual and reproductive health (SRH) and exercising their rights. We assessed the effectiveness of interventions to improve self-efficacy and empowerment of women living with HIV to make SRH decisions through a systematic review.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included peer-reviewed articles indexed in PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus published through January 3, 2017, presenting multi-arm or pre-post intervention evaluations measuring one of the following outcomes: (1) self-efficacy, empowerment, or measures of SRH decision-making ability, (2) SRH behaviors (e.g., condom use, contraceptive use), or (3) SRH outcomes (e.g., sexually transmitted infections [STIs]). Twenty-one studies evaluating 11 intervention approaches met the inclusion criteria. All were conducted in the United States or sub-Saharan Africa. Two high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed significant decreases in incident gonorrhea and chlamydia. Sixteen studies measuring condom use generally found moderate increases associated with the intervention, including in higher-quality RCTs. Findings on contraceptive use, condom self-efficacy, and other empowerment measures (e.g., sexual communication, equitable relationship power) were mixed. Studies were limited by small sample sizes, high loss to follow-up, and high reported baseline condom use.
CONCLUSIONS: While more research is needed, the limited existing evidence suggests that these interventions may help support the SRH and rights of women living with HIV. This review particularly highlights the importance of these interventions for preventing STIs, which present a significant health burden for women living with HIV that is rarely addressed holistically. Empowerment-based interventions should be considered as part of a comprehensive package of STI and other SRH services for women living with HIV.
This systematic review describes mHealth interventions directed at healthcare workers in low-resource settings from the PubMed database from March 2009 to May 2015. Thirty-one articles were selected for final review. Four categories emerged from the reviewed articles: data collection during patient visits, communication between health workers and patients, communication between health workers, and public health surveillance. Most studies used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to assess acceptability of use, barriers to use, changes in healthcare delivery, and improved health outcomes. Few papers included theory explicitly to guide development and evaluation of their mHealth programs. Overall, evidence indicated that mobile technology tools, such as smartphones and tablets, substantially benefit healthcare workers, their patients, and healthcare delivery. Limitations to mHealth tools included insufficient program use and sustainability, unreliable Internet and electricity, and security issues. Despite these limitations, this systematic review demonstrates the utility of using mHealth in low-resource settings and the potential for widespread health system improvements using technology.
to assess the efficacy of psychosocial interventions delivered through task-sharing approaches for preventing perinatal common mental disorders among women in low- and middle-income countries.
METHODS:
We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following a prespecified protocol registered in the Open Science Framework (osf.io/qt4y3). We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through June 2022. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS:
We included 23 studies with 24,442 participants. At post-intervention, task-shared psychosocial interventions, were effective in preventing the development of mental disorders in general (RR 0.57, 95% CI [0.35, 0.91]), and specifically depression (RR 0.51, 95% CI [0.35, 0.75]), but not anxiety disorders (RR 0.46, 95% CI [0.06, 3.33]). Similarly, psychosocial interventions reduced psychological distress (SMD -1.32, 95% CI [-2.28, -0.35]), and depressive symptoms (SMD -0.50, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.16]), and increased parenting self-efficacy (SMD -0.76, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.38]) and social support (SMD -0.72, 95% CI [-1.22, -0.22]). No effect was detected for anxiety symptoms at post-intervention. At follow-up the beneficial effects of interventions progressively decreased.
CONCLUSIONS:
Psychosocial interventions delivered through the task-sharing modality are effective in preventing perinatal common mental disorders and fostering positive mental health among women in low- and middle-income countries. However, our findings are tentative, due to the low number of preventative intervention strategies considering outcomes as the incidence of mental disorders, especially in the long-term. This evidence supports calls to implement and scale up psychosocial prevention interventions for perinatal common mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries.
