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: Immunisation plays a major role in reducing childhood morbidity and mortality. Getting children immunised against potentially fatal and debilitating vaccine-preventable diseases remains a challenge despite the availability of efficacious vaccines, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. With the introduction of new vaccines, this becomes increasingly difficult. There is therefore a current need to synthesise the available evidence on the strategies used to bridge this gap. This is a second update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2011 and updated in 2016, and it focuses on interventions for improving childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies to boost demand and supply of childhood vaccines, and sustain high childhood immunisation coverage in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus (11 July 2022). We searched Embase, LILACS, and Sociological Abstracts (2 September 2014). We searched WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (11 July 2022). In addition, we screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews for potentially eligible studies, and carried out a citation search for 14 of the included studies (19 February 2020).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised RCTs (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series conducted in low- and middle-income countries involving children that were under five years of age, caregivers, and healthcare providers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened the search output, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible articles, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one studies involving 100,747 participants are included in the review. Twenty studies were cluster-randomised and 15 studies were individually randomised controlled trials. Six studies were quasi-randomised. The studies were conducted in four upper-middle-income countries (China, Georgia, Mexico, Guatemala), 11 lower-middle-income countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Zimbabwe), and three lower-income countries (Afghanistan, Mali, Rwanda). The interventions evaluated in the studies were health education (seven studies), patient reminders (13 studies), digital register (two studies), household incentives (three studies), regular immunisation outreach sessions (two studies), home visits (one study), supportive supervision (two studies), integration of immunisation services with intermittent preventive treatment of malaria (one study), payment for performance (two studies), engagement of community leaders (one study), training on interpersonal communication skills (one study), and logistic support to health facilities (one study). We judged nine of the included studies to have low risk of bias; the risk of bias in eight studies was unclear and 24 studies had high risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that health education (risk ratio (RR) 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.62; 6 studies, 4375 participants) and home-based records (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.75; 3 studies, 4019 participants) may improve coverage with DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine. Phone calls/short messages may have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; 6 studies, 3869 participants; low-certainty evidence); wearable reminders probably have little or no effect on DTP3/Penta 3 uptake (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07; 2 studies, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Use of community leaders in combination with provider intervention probably increases the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.69; 1 study, 2020 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of immunisation outreach on DTP3/Penta 3 vaccine uptake in children under two years of age (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.56; 1 study, 541 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are also uncertain about the following interventions improving full vaccination of children under two years of age: training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills (RR 5.65, 95% CI 3.62 to 8.83; 1 study, 420 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and home visits (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.45; 1 study, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The same applies to the effect of training of health providers on interpersonal communication skills on the uptake of DTP3/Penta 3 by one year of age (very low-certainty evidence). The integration of immunisation with other services may, however, improve full vaccination (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.44; 1 study, 1700 participants; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Health education, home-based records, a combination of involvement of community leaders with health provider intervention, and integration of immunisation services may improve vaccine uptake. The certainty of the evidence for the included interventions ranged from moderate to very low. Low certainty of the evidence implies that the true effect of the interventions might be markedly different from the estimated effect. Further, more rigorous RCTs are, therefore, required to generate high-certainty evidence to inform policy and practice.
BACKGROUND: The leading causes of mortality globally in children younger than five years of age (under-fives), and particularly in the regions of sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Southern Asia, in 2018 were infectious diseases, including pneumonia (15%), diarrhoea (8%), malaria (5%) and newborn sepsis (7%) (UNICEF 2019). Nutrition-related factors contributed to 45% of under-five deaths (UNICEF 2019). World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), in collaboration with other development partners, have developed an approach - now known as integrated community case management (iCCM) - to bring treatment services for children 'closer to home'. The iCCM approach provides integrated case management services for two or more illnesses - including diarrhoea, pneumonia, malaria, severe acute malnutrition or neonatal sepsis - among under-fives at community level (i.e. outside of healthcare facilities) by lay health workers where there is limited access to health facility-based case management services (WHO/UNICEF 2012).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the integrated community case management (iCCM) strategy on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for children younger than five years of age in low- and middle-income countries.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL on 7 November 2019, Virtual Health Library on 8 November 2019, and Popline on 5 December 2018, three other databases on 22 March 2019 and two trial registers on 8 November 2019. We performed reference checking, and citation searching, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series (ITS) studies and repeated measures studies comparing generic WHO/UNICEF iCCM (or local adaptation thereof) for at least two iCCM diseases with usual facility services (facility treatment services) with or without single disease community case management (CCM). We included studies reporting on coverage of appropriate treatment for childhood illness by an appropriate provider, quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality, adverse events and coverage of careseeking for under-fives in low- and middle-income countries.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently screened abstracts, screened full texts and extracted data using a standardised data collection form adapted from the EPOC Good Practice Data Collection Form. We resolved any disagreements through discussion or, if required, we consulted a third review author not involved in the original screening. We contacted study authors for clarification or additional details when necessary. We reported risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and hazard ratios (HR) for time to event outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for clustering, where possible. We used estimates of effect from the primary analysis reported by the investigators, where possible. We analysed the effects of randomized trials and other study types separately. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies, of which three were cluster RCTs and four were CBAs. Six of the seven studies were in SSA and one study was in Southern Asia. The iCCM components and inputs were fairly consistent across the seven studies with notable variation for the training and deployment component (e.g. on payment of iCCM providers) and the system component (e.g. on improving information systems). When compared to usual facility services, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.19; 2 CBA studies, 5898 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM may have little to no effect on neonatal mortality (HR 1.01, 95% 0.73 to 1.28; 2 trials, 65,209 children; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on infant mortality (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; 2 trials, 60,480 children; very low-certainty evidence) and under-five mortality (HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.37; 1 trial, 4729 children; very low-certainty evidence). iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness by 68% (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.27; 2 trials, 9853 children; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, severity of illness or adverse events for this comparison. When compared to usual facility services plus CCM for malaria, we are uncertain of the effect of iCCM on coverage of appropriate treatment from an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (very low-certainty evidence) and iCCM may have little or no effect on careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.17; 1 trial, 811 children; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported quality of care, case load or severity of illness at health facilities, mortality or adverse events for this comparison.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: iCCM probably increases coverage of careseeking to an appropriate provider for any iCCM illness. However, the evidence presented here underscores the importance of moving beyond training and deployment to valuing iCCM providers, strengthening health systems and engaging community systems.
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.
Background: Improving breastfeeding rates is critical. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only subtle improvements in breastfeeding rates have been observed over the past decade, which highlights the need for accelerating breastfeeding promotion interventions.Objectives: The objective of this article is to update evidence on the effect of interventions on early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs when delivered in health systems, in the home or in community environments, or in a combination of settings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, and CABI databases to identify new articles relevant to our current review, which were published after the search date of our earlier meta-analysis (October 2014). Nine new articles were found to be relevant and were included, in addition to the other 52 studies that were identified in our earlier meta-analysis. We reported the pooled ORs and corresponding 95% CIs as our outcome estimates. In cases of high heterogeneity, random-effects models were used and causes were explored by subgroup analysis and meta-regression.Results: Early initiation of and exclusive (<1 and 1-5 mo) and continued (6-23 mo) breastfeeding rates in LMICs improved significantly as a result of interventions delivered in health systems, in the home or community, or a combination of these. Interventions delivered concurrently in a combination of settings were found to show the largest improvements in desired breastfeeding outcomes. Counseling provided in any setting and baby-friendly support in health systems appear to be the most effective interventions to improve breastfeeding.Conclusions: Improvements in breastfeeding practices are possible in LMICs with judicious use of tested interventions, particularly when delivered in a combination of settings concurrently. The findings can be considered for inclusion in the Lives Saved Tool model.
Evidence of the cost-effectiveness of community health worker interventions is pertinent for decision-makers and programme planners who are turning to community services in order to strengthen health systems in the context of the momentum generated by strategies to support universal health care, the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal agenda.We conducted a systematic review of published economic evaluation studies of community health worker interventions aimed at improving child health outcomes. Four public health and economic evaluation databases were searched for studies that met the inclusion criteria: National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Cochrane, Paediatric Economic Evaluation Database (PEED), and PubMed. The search strategy was tailored to each database.The 19 studies that met the inclusion criteria were conducted in either high income countries (HIC), low- income countries (LIC) and/or middle-income countries (MIC). The economic evaluations covered a wide range of interventions. Studies were grouped together by intended outcome or objective of each study. The data varied in quality. We found evidence of cost-effectiveness of community health worker (CHW) interventions in reducing malaria and asthma, decreasing mortality of neonates and children, improving maternal health, increasing exclusive breastfeeding and improving malnutrition, and positively impacting physical health and psychomotor development amongst children.Studies measured varied outcomes, due to the heterogeneous nature of studies included; a meta-analysis was not conducted. Outcomes included disease- or condition -specific outcomes, morbidity, mortality, and generic measures (e.g. disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)). Nonetheless, all 19 interventions were found to be either cost-effective or highly cost-effective at a threshold specific to their respective countries.There is a growing body of economic evaluation literature on cost-effectiveness of CHW interventions. However, this is largely for small scale and vertical programmes. There is a need for economic evaluations of larger and integrated CHW programmes in order to achieve the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goal agenda so that appropriate resources can be allocated to this subset of human resources for health. This is the first systematic review to assess the cost-effectiveness of community health workers in delivering child health interventions.
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.
The objectives of this review were to evaluate the effect of home visits by trained community health workers (CHWs) to successfully identify newborns and young infants (up to 59 days of age) with serious illness and improve care seeking from a health facility. The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Abstracts of all articles were read by two authors independently and relevant articles selected. Data were extracted in a pretested questionnaire by two authors independently. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager software. A meta-analysis of included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. Pooled estimates (risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)) of the evaluated outcome measures were calculated by the generic inverse variance method. Seven articles were identified for inclusion in the review. None of them compared the diagnosis of serious illness in young infants by health workers to a 'gold standard' diagnosis. Three studies were available for evaluating the ability of CHWs to identify seriously ill young infants/signs of serious illness. These studies suggest that sensitivity to identify serious illness ranged from 33.3 to 90.5% and specificity from 75.61 to 98.4%. For the outcome of improved care seeking from a health facility, after pooling the data from six RCTs with 4760 subjects in the intervention and 4398 subjects in the control arm, there was a significant improvement in care seeking in the home visit arm (RR=1.35; 95% CI=1.15 to 1.58). Moderate quality evidence indicated that home visits by trained CHWs were associated with improved care-seeking for sick young infants from health facilities by appropriate health care providers in resource-limited settings. However, there is a lack of data regarding successful identification of serious illness. Evidence from validation studies supports the implementation of home visits by trained CHWs for improving outcomes in sick newborns and young infants in resource-limited areas. Further well-designed studies evaluating the effect of home visits by CHWs on successful identification of seriously ill newborns and young infants should include verification by a 'gold standard'.
The objective of this review is to assess the effect of home-based neonatal care provided by community health workers (CHWs) for preventing neonatal, infant and perinatal mortality in resource-limited settings with poor access to health facility-based care. The authors conducted a systematic review, including meta-analysis and meta-regression of controlled trials. The data sources included electronic databases, with a hand search of reviews, abstracts and proceedings of conferences to search for randomized, or cluster randomized, controlled trials evaluating the effect of home-based neonatal care provided by CHWs for preventing neonatal, infant and perinatal mortality. Among the included trials, all from South Asian countries, information on neonatal, infant and perinatal mortality was available in five, one and three trials, respectively. The intervention package comprised three components, namely, home visits during pregnancy (four trials), home-based preventive and/or curative neonatal care (all trials) and community mobilization efforts (four trials). Intervention was associated with a reduced risk of mortality during the neonatal (random effects model relative risk (RR) 0.75; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.61 to 0.92, P=0.005; I(2)=82.2%, P<0.001 for heterogeneity; high-quality evidence) and perinatal periods (random effects model RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, P=0.009; I(2)=79.6%, P=0.007 for heterogeneity; high-quality evidence). In one trial, a significant decline in infant mortality (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.94) was documented. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses suggested a greater effect with a higher baseline neonatal mortality rate. The authors concluded that home-based neonatal care is associated with a reduction in neonatal and perinatal mortality in South Asian settings with high neonatal-mortality rates and poor access to health facility-based care. Adoption of a policy of home-based neonatal care provided by CHWs is justified in such settings.
BACKGROUND: Many interventions have been implemented to improve maternal health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Currently, however, systematic information on the effectiveness of these interventions remains scarce. We conducted a systematic review of published evidence on non-drug interventions that reported effectiveness in improving outcomes and quality of care in maternal health in SSA.
METHODS: African Journals Online, Bioline, MEDLINE, Ovid, Science Direct, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published in English between 2000 and 2015 and reporting on the effectiveness of interventions to improve quality and outcomes of maternal health care in SSA. Articles focusing on interventions that involved drug treatments, medications, or therapies were excluded. We present a narrative synthesis of the reported impact of these interventions on maternal morbidity and mortality outcomes as well as on other dimensions of the quality of maternal health care (as defined by the Institute of Medicine 2001 to comprise safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient centeredness, and equitability).
RESULTS: Seventy-three studies were included in this review. Non-drug interventions that directly or indirectly improved quality of maternal health and morbidity and mortality outcomes in SSA assumed a variety of forms including mobile and electronic health, financial incentives on the demand and supply side, facility-based clinical audits and maternal death reviews, health systems strengthening interventions, community mobilization and/or peer-based programs, home-based visits, counseling and health educational and promotional programs conducted by health care providers, transportation and/or communication and referrals for emergency obstetric care, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and task shifting interventions. There was a preponderance of single facility and community-based studies whose effectiveness was difficult to assess.
CONCLUSIONS: Many non-drug interventions have been implemented to improve maternal health care in SSA. These interventions have largely been health facility and/or community based. While the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve maternal health is varied, study findings underscore the importance of implementing comprehensive interventions that strengthen different components of the health care systems, both in the community and at the health facilities, coupled with a supportive policy environment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015023750.
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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
