Effective interventions to support recovery of people with psychosis and their families across socio-ecological levels in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to support the recovery of people living with psychosis and their families in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Methods
We searched nine databases for articles published from January 2001 to January 2024 without language restrictions. Studies were eligible if they enrolled people living with psychosis or family members, and tested a psychoeducational, psychological, social, economic or service intervention or delivery or implementation strategy aimed at improving outcomes of people with psychosis. Eligible studies were required to compare outcomes with an alternative condition, using any prospective evaluation study design in a LMIC setting. We extracted summary data from published papers and appraised risk of bias using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. We prioritised the reporting of recovery-orientated outcomes including social inclusion, personal recovery, reduced stigma and discrimination and human rights protections. We conceptualised the person living with psychosis in their context (individual, family, organisation and community) based on the socio-ecological model of disability and highlighted studies intervening and measuring outcomes across multiple socio-ecological levels. Protocol registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022330298).
Findings
A total of 310 individual studies including data from 34,435 participants in 37 countries were included. Aggregate data from a further five meta-analyses, comprising data from 130 individual studies were also included. The majority of studies (77%) were conducted in upper middle-income countries. There was a dominance of studies evaluating impacts of interventions on individual-level mental health and functioning and a paucity of studies measuring the recovery-orientated outcomes prioritised by people living with psychosis. There were modest effects for comprehensive interventions involving family, psychosocial rehabilitation and care close to home provided by trained specialists however their scalability in resource-limited settings is unclear. Over half the studies were considered to have a high risk of bias.
Interpretation
There is a need for studies that evaluate scalable interventions supporting recovery with comprehensive and contextualised outcome measures and for greater investment in strengthening capacity to conduct rigorous psychosis research across LMICs.
Funding
None.
Research in context
Evidence before this study
Recent World Health Organization (WHO) guidance on human rights-based, recovery-orientated community mental health care featured markedly few case studies of good practice for people with psychosis in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Systematic reviews of interventions for psychosis in LMICs have been narrow in focus and reporting outcomes, and limited to English language publications.
Added value of this study
This systematic review is the most comprehensive synthesis to date of psychosis interventions in LMICs. Inclusion is not restricted by publication language. We highlight studies reporting recovery-oriented outcomes prioritised by people living with psychosis and impacts of interventions across levels of the socio-ecological model of disability. While being particularly relevant to LMICs, our findings also contribute a useful perspective for high income settings.
Implications of all the available evidence
Most interventions were targeted at the individual and focused on mental health and functioning outcomes, with few evaluations of impact on social inclusion and other valued outcomes. There is some evidence in support of specialist-delivered comprehensive interventions involving family, psychosocial rehabilitation and care close to home, but effect sizes were small-to-modest, and many intervention types and delivery agents have not been adequately tested, especially in LICs and rural settings. There is a clear need to develop comprehensive and contextualised measures for recovery-orientated outcomes and to invest in strengthening capacity to conduct rigorous research on interventions for psychosis in LMICs.
