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.

Question: Task-shared preventive psychological interventions combined with interventions addressing social determinants of mental health may prevent common mental health conditions (CMHCs), particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, an evidence synthesis of their combination has not yet been investigated. We aimed to systematically assess the effectiveness of these combined interventions in LMICs. Study selection and analysis: We searched Epistemonikos, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, GIM, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP until 2 September 2024. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to assess the primary outcome, which was the incidence of CMHCs, and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023451072). Findings: Of the 21 780 records identified from electronic sources, we included 31 randomised controlled trials from 21 LMICs involving 35 885 participants. Combined interventions were effective in reducing the incidence of depression and post-traumatic stress disorders at postintervention compared with control conditions for adults (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93) and children (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99). At 7–24 months, we only found beneficial effects of combined interventions for depressive symptoms in children (standardised mean difference −0.41, 95% CI −0.63 to –0.18). No data were available on the incidence of anxiety. Conclusions: Combined task-shared interventions are effective in mostly short-term prevention of CMHCs in LMICs. Combining strategies targeting social determinants with psychological prevention approaches offers a potential opportunity to reduce the global mental health burden. Future research should focus on key intervention components and head-to-head comparisons between different interventions and between their components. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023451072.

Aims: WHO declared that mental health care should be considered one essential health service to be maintained during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aims to describe the effect of lockdown and restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy on mental health services’ utilisation, by considering psychiatric diagnoses and type of mental health contacts. Methods: The study was conducted in the Verona catchment area, located in the Veneto region (northeastern Italy). For each patient, mental health contacts were grouped into: (1) outpatient care, (2) social and supportive interventions, (3) rehabilitation interventions, (4) multi-professional assessments, (5) day care. A ‘difference in differences’ approach was used: difference in the number of contacts between 2019 and 2020 on the weeks of lockdown and intermediate restrictions was compared with the same difference in weeks of no or reduced restrictions, and such difference was interpreted as the effect of restrictions. Both a global regression on all contacts and separate regressions for each type of service were performed and Incidence Rate Ratios (IRRs) were calculated. Results: In 2020, a significant reduction in the number of patients who had mental health contacts was found, both overall and for most of the patients’ characteristics considered (except for people aged 18–24 years for foreign-born population and for those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Moreover, in 2020 mental health contacts had a reduction of 57 096 (−33.9%) with respect to 2019; such difference remained significant across the various type of contacts considered, with rehabilitation interventions and day care showing the greatest reduction. Negative Binomial regressions displayed a statistically significant effect of lockdown, but not of intermediate restrictions, in terms of reduction in the number of contacts. The lockdown period was responsible of a 32.7% reduction (IRR 0.673; p-value <0.001) in the overall number of contacts. All type of mental health contacts showed a reduction ascribable to the lockdown, except social and supportive interventions. Conclusions: Despite the access to community mental health care during the pandemic was overall reduced, the mental health system in the Verona catchment area was able to maintain support for more vulnerable and severely ill patients, by providing continuity of care and day-by-day support through social and supportive interventions.

Objectives: To quantify access to health services during the COVID-19 pandemic and measure the change in use between the prepandemic and the pandemic periods in a population with assessment of psychological distress or diagnosis of mental disorders.Data sources: We developed and piloted a search syntax and adapted it to enter the following databases from 1 January 2020 to 31 March 2023: PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Epistemonikos and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We reran the searches from the end of the original search to 3 December 2024.Design: We systematically screened titles, abstracts and full texts of retrieved records.Eligibility criteria: We included observational studies on any populations and regions, covering health services such as doctor visits, hospital admissions, diagnostic examinations, pharmaceutical therapies and mental health (MH) services. Only studies using validated scales to assess psychological distress or mental disorders as defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders were included.Data extraction and synthesis: We extracted data using a purposefully designed form and evaluated the studies’ quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We measured the incidence rate (IR) of access to health services and the IR ratio (IRR) between the prepandemic and the pandemic periods. We calculated contacts days and catchment areas in the different periods. We used the random effects DerSimonian-Laird inverse-variance model and calculated heterogeneity with statistics I² and τ². We computed pooled IR and pooled IRR and tested the hypothesis of no variation (IRR=1).Results: We retrieved 10 014 records and examined the full text of 580 articles. We included 136 primary studies of which 44 were meta-analysed. The IR of access to services during the pandemic was 2.59 contact months per 10 000 inhabitants (IR=2.592; 95% CI: 1.301 to 5.164). We observed a reduction of 28.5% in the use of services with negligible differences by age group and type of services (IRR=0.715; 95% CI: 0.651 to 0.785). We observed significant differences in effect sizes across studies (τ²=5.44; p<0.001 and τ²=0.090; p<0.001).Conclusion: By considering MH, our study provides consolidated evidence and quantifies the reduction in the use of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023403778.

Migrant mental health is a pressing public health issue with wide-ranging implications. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted in this population to assess the effects of psychosocial interventions. However, the available evidence is characterized by controversy and fragmentation, with studies focusing on different migrant populations, interventions, outcomes, delivery modalities and settings. Aiming to promote systematic reviews of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in different migrant groups, we have developed a living database of existing RCTs. The development of the database provides an opportunity to map the existing RCT evidence in this population. A total of 135 studies involving 24,859 participants were included in the living database. The distribution of studies by year of publication aligns with the increasing global migrant population in recent years. Most studies focus primarily on adult participants, with a limited representation of children and adolescents, and a prevalence of female participants, which is consistent with epidemiological data, except for older adults, who are underrepresented in research. Studies predominantly focus on refugees and asylum seekers, likely due to their elevated risk of mental health issues, despite the substantial presence of economic migrants worldwide. While studies mainly involve migrants from the Middle East and East Asia, epidemiological data suggest a broader geographic representation, with migrants coming from Eastern Europe, Latin America and South Asia. The present descriptive analysis of RCTs on mental health and psychosocial interventions for migrant populations provides valuable insights into the existing research landscape. It should be used to inform future research efforts, ensuring that studies are more representative of the global migrant population and more responsive to the mental health needs of migrants in different contexts.