Cargando…

Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ali, Gemma-Claire, Ryan, Grace, De Silva, Mary J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911088/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27310297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156939
_version_ 1782438083506995200
author Ali, Gemma-Claire
Ryan, Grace
De Silva, Mary J.
author_facet Ali, Gemma-Claire
Ryan, Grace
De Silva, Mary J.
author_sort Ali, Gemma-Claire
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations. METHODS: A systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools. RESULTS: 153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Of the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4911088
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49110882016-07-06 Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review Ali, Gemma-Claire Ryan, Grace De Silva, Mary J. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: A wide range of screening tools are available to detect common mental disorders (CMDs), but few have been specifically developed for populations in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Cross-cultural application of a screening tool requires that its validity be assessed against a gold standard diagnostic interview. Validation studies of brief CMD screening tools have been conducted in several LMIC, but until now there has been no review of screening tools for all CMDs across all LMIC populations. METHODS: A systematic review with broad inclusion criteria was conducted, producing a comprehensive summary of brief CMD screening tools validated for use in LMIC populations. For each validation, the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was calculated as an easily comparable measure of screening tool validity. Average DOR results weighted by sample size were calculated for each screening tool, enabling us to make broad recommendations about best performing screening tools. RESULTS: 153 studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Because many studies validated two or more screening tools, this corresponded to 273 separate validations against gold standard diagnostic criteria. We found that the validity of every screening tool tested in multiple settings and populations varied between studies, highlighting the importance of local validation. Many of the best performing tools were purposely developed for a specific population; however, as these tools have only been validated in one study, it is not possible to draw broader conclusions about their applicability in other contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Of the tools that have been validated in multiple settings, the authors broadly recommend using the SRQ-20 to screen for general CMDs, the GHQ-12 for CMDs in populations with physical illness, the HADS-D for depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 for depressive disorders in populations with good literacy levels, the EPDS for perinatal depressive disorders, and the HADS-A for anxiety disorders. We recommend that, wherever possible, a chosen screening tool should be validated against a gold standard diagnostic assessment in the specific context in which it will be employed. Public Library of Science 2016-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4911088/ /pubmed/27310297 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156939 Text en © 2016 Ali et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ali, Gemma-Claire
Ryan, Grace
De Silva, Mary J.
Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
title Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
title_full Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
title_short Validated Screening Tools for Common Mental Disorders in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review
title_sort validated screening tools for common mental disorders in low and middle income countries: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911088/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27310297
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156939
work_keys_str_mv AT aligemmaclaire validatedscreeningtoolsforcommonmentaldisordersinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT ryangrace validatedscreeningtoolsforcommonmentaldisordersinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview
AT desilvamaryj validatedscreeningtoolsforcommonmentaldisordersinlowandmiddleincomecountriesasystematicreview