3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      World Health Organization's low‐intensity psychosocial interventions: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effects of Problem Management Plus andStep‐by‐Step

      1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 1 , 3
      World Psychiatry
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Many societies have been recently exposed to humanitarian and health emergencies, which have resulted in a large number of people experiencing significant distress and being at risk to develop mental disorders such as depression, anxiety and post‐traumatic stress disorder. The World Health Organization has released a series of scalable psychosocial interventions for people impaired by distress in communities exposed to adversities. Prominent among these is a low‐intensity transdiagnostic psychosocial intervention, Problem Management Plus (PM+), and its digital adaptation Step‐by‐Step (SbS). This systematic review is the first to summarize the available evidence on the effects of PM+ and SbS. Up to March 8, 2023, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials examining the effects of PM+ or SbS on distress indicators (i.e., general distress; anxiety, depressive or post‐traumatic stress disorder symptoms; functional impairment, self‐identified problems) and positive mental health outcomes (i.e., well‐being, quality of life, social support/relationships). We performed random‐effects multilevel meta‐analyses on standardized mean differences (SMDs) at post‐intervention and short‐term follow‐up assessments. Our search yielded 23 eligible studies, including 5,298 participants. We found a small to medium favorable effect on distress indicators (SMD=–0.45, 95% CI: –0.56 to –0.34) and a small beneficial effect on positive mental health outcomes (SMD=0.31, 95% CI: 0.14‐0.47), which both remained significant at follow‐up assessment and were robust in sensitivity analyses. However, our analyses pointed to substantial between‐study heterogeneity, which was only partially explained by moderators, and the certainty of evidence was very low across all outcomes. These results provide evidence for the effectiveness of PM+ and SbS in reducing distress indicators and promoting positive mental health in populations exposed to adversities, but a larger high‐quality evidence base is needed, as well as research on participant‐level moderators of the effects of these interventions, their suitability for stepped‐care programs, and their cost‐effectiveness.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                World Psychiatry
                World Psychiatry
                Wiley
                1723-8617
                2051-5545
                October 2023
                September 15 2023
                October 2023
                : 22
                : 3
                : 449-462
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research Mainz Germany
                [2 ]Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Psychodiagnostics Technische Universität Braunschweig Braunschweig Germany
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz Germany
                Article
                10.1002/wps.21129
                10503931
                37713578
                3f200967-46f1-4154-9c12-3197f325ab10
                © 2023

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content73

                Cited by11

                Most referenced authors1,665