Cargando…
Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries
BACKGROUND: The clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) paradigm is one of the best studied preventive paradigms in psychiatry. However, most studies have been conducted in high-income countries. It is unclear if knowledge from such countries applies to low and middle-income countries (LAMIC), and if...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10126325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37113551 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1148862 |
_version_ | 1785030217661677568 |
---|---|
author | Loch, Alexandre Andrade Lopes-Rocha, Ana Caroline Fekih-Romdhane, Feten van de Bilt, Martinus Theodorus Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo Fusar-Poli, Paolo |
author_facet | Loch, Alexandre Andrade Lopes-Rocha, Ana Caroline Fekih-Romdhane, Feten van de Bilt, Martinus Theodorus Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo Fusar-Poli, Paolo |
author_sort | Loch, Alexandre Andrade |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) paradigm is one of the best studied preventive paradigms in psychiatry. However, most studies have been conducted in high-income countries. It is unclear if knowledge from such countries applies to low and middle-income countries (LAMIC), and if there are specific limitations hindering CHR research there. Our aim is to systematically review studies on CHR from LAMIC. METHODS: A multistep PRISMA-compliant literature search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science for articles published until 1/03/2022, conducted in LAMIC, addressing the concept and correlates of CHR. Study characteristics as well as limitations were reported. Corresponding authors of the included studies were invited to answer an online poll. Quality assessment was done with the MMAT. RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included in the review: none from low-income countries, 8 from lower middle-income countries, and 101 from upper middle-income countries. The most frequent limitations were small sample size (47.9%), cross-sectional design (27.1%), and follow-up issues (20.8%). Mean quality of included studies was of 4.4. Out of the 43 corresponding authors, 12 (27.9%) completed the online poll. They cited further limitations as few financial resources (66.7%), no involvement of population (58.2%) and cultural barriers (41.7%). Seventy five percent researchers reported that CHR research should be conducted differently in LAMIC compared to high-income countries, due to structural and cultural issues. Stigma was mentioned in three out of five sections of the poll. DISCUSSION: Results show the discrepancy of available evidence on CHR in LAMIC, given the shortage of resources in such countries. Future directions should aim to increase the knowledge on individuals at CHR in such settings, and to address stigma and cultural factors that may play a role in the pathways toward care in psychosis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=316816, CRD42022316816. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10126325 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101263252023-04-26 Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries Loch, Alexandre Andrade Lopes-Rocha, Ana Caroline Fekih-Romdhane, Feten van de Bilt, Martinus Theodorus Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo Fusar-Poli, Paolo Front Psychiatry Psychiatry BACKGROUND: The clinical high-risk for psychosis (CHR) paradigm is one of the best studied preventive paradigms in psychiatry. However, most studies have been conducted in high-income countries. It is unclear if knowledge from such countries applies to low and middle-income countries (LAMIC), and if there are specific limitations hindering CHR research there. Our aim is to systematically review studies on CHR from LAMIC. METHODS: A multistep PRISMA-compliant literature search was performed in PubMed and Web of Science for articles published until 1/03/2022, conducted in LAMIC, addressing the concept and correlates of CHR. Study characteristics as well as limitations were reported. Corresponding authors of the included studies were invited to answer an online poll. Quality assessment was done with the MMAT. RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included in the review: none from low-income countries, 8 from lower middle-income countries, and 101 from upper middle-income countries. The most frequent limitations were small sample size (47.9%), cross-sectional design (27.1%), and follow-up issues (20.8%). Mean quality of included studies was of 4.4. Out of the 43 corresponding authors, 12 (27.9%) completed the online poll. They cited further limitations as few financial resources (66.7%), no involvement of population (58.2%) and cultural barriers (41.7%). Seventy five percent researchers reported that CHR research should be conducted differently in LAMIC compared to high-income countries, due to structural and cultural issues. Stigma was mentioned in three out of five sections of the poll. DISCUSSION: Results show the discrepancy of available evidence on CHR in LAMIC, given the shortage of resources in such countries. Future directions should aim to increase the knowledge on individuals at CHR in such settings, and to address stigma and cultural factors that may play a role in the pathways toward care in psychosis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=316816, CRD42022316816. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10126325/ /pubmed/37113551 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1148862 Text en Copyright © 2023 Loch, Lopes-Rocha, Fekih-Romdhane, van de Bilt, Salazar de Pablo and Fusar-Poli. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Psychiatry Loch, Alexandre Andrade Lopes-Rocha, Ana Caroline Fekih-Romdhane, Feten van de Bilt, Martinus Theodorus Salazar de Pablo, Gonzalo Fusar-Poli, Paolo Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
title | Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
title_full | Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
title_fullStr | Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
title_full_unstemmed | Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
title_short | Inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: A systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
title_sort | inequality and barriers in psychosis prevention: a systematic review on clinical high-risk for psychosis studies from developing countries |
topic | Psychiatry |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10126325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37113551 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1148862 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lochalexandreandrade inequalityandbarriersinpsychosispreventionasystematicreviewonclinicalhighriskforpsychosisstudiesfromdevelopingcountries AT lopesrochaanacaroline inequalityandbarriersinpsychosispreventionasystematicreviewonclinicalhighriskforpsychosisstudiesfromdevelopingcountries AT fekihromdhanefeten inequalityandbarriersinpsychosispreventionasystematicreviewonclinicalhighriskforpsychosisstudiesfromdevelopingcountries AT vandebiltmartinustheodorus inequalityandbarriersinpsychosispreventionasystematicreviewonclinicalhighriskforpsychosisstudiesfromdevelopingcountries AT salazardepablogonzalo inequalityandbarriersinpsychosispreventionasystematicreviewonclinicalhighriskforpsychosisstudiesfromdevelopingcountries AT fusarpolipaolo inequalityandbarriersinpsychosispreventionasystematicreviewonclinicalhighriskforpsychosisstudiesfromdevelopingcountries |