Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Confl Health. 16 October 2024; Volume 18 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s13031-024-00620-6
Martínez Torre S, Sordo L, Sagrado Benito MJ, Llosa AE, Carrascal Maldonado A, et al.
Confl Health. 16 October 2024; Volume 18 (Issue 1); DOI:10.1186/s13031-024-00620-6
BACKGROUND
Conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) is a significant health and human rights issue in humanitarian contexts, but there is a need of further research on differences between sexes in terms of severity of symptoms and improvement. Consequently, we explored the differences in severity and outcomes among male and female survivors of CRSV who received mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) in an armed conflict setting.
METHODS
We retrospectively analysed medical records from 3442 CRSV survivors in a MHPSS programme in Borno State, Nigeria, between 2018 and 2019. Patient characteristics, severity (measured with Clinical Global Impression of Severity Scale [CGI-S scale]), and improvement (measured with Clinical Global Impression of improvement [CGI-I] scale) were assessed by an attending counsellor. We assessed predictors for severity and improvement using a multivariable logistic regression analysis and time to improvement by sex using Kaplan Meier (K-M) curves and Cox regression.
RESULTS
We included 3442 patients who had at least one CRSV event in this study (2955 [85.9%] female, 486 [14.1%] male, one unknown). The most prevalent categories of symptoms were depression (49.9%; n = 1716), post-traumatic (25.6%; n = 879), and anxiety (20.3%; n = 697) symptoms. Most patients had mild (59.0%; n = 1869/3170) or moderate (36.4%; n = 1153/3170) symptoms at baseline, with 4.7% having severe symptoms (n = 148/3170). The logistic regression analysis (n = 1106), showed male patients had a 59% higher odds of severe symptoms at baseline than female patients (aOR 1.59; 95% CI 1.04-2.45). Among males, those older than 55 years had three times higher odds of presenting severe symptoms than younger patients (aOR 3.65; 95% CI 1.43-9.34). Women aged 36-55 years were more likely to present improvement than younger female patients (aOR 1.32; 95% CI 1.11-1.58). For both sexes, prompt attention after a CRSV event (≤ 3 days) positively predicted improvement (aOR 13.9; 95% CI 1.48-130 males, aOR 2.11; 95% CI 1.22-3.64 females) compared to late attention. Time to improvement did not differ between sexes, with an average of at least three consultations needed to achieve improvement.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that psychological attention of survivors within the first 72 h should be a priority. MHPSS programmes addressing CRSV should be inclusive to all patients, and gender-neutral approaches to ensure access, safety, confidentiality, and non-discrimination for all survivors should be developed.
Journal Article > ReviewSubscription Only
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
CDSR
Cochrane review. 3 July 2024; Volume 7 (Issue 7); CD013425.; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD013425.pub2
Ibragimov K, Keane GP, Carreño Glaría C, Cheng J, Llosa AE
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
CDSR
Cochrane review. 3 July 2024; Volume 7 (Issue 7); CD013425.; DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD013425.pub2
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.
RESULTS
We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is often a severe and disabling psychiatric disorder. Antipsychotics remain the mainstay of psychotropic treatment for people with psychosis. In limited resource and humanitarian contexts, it is key to have several options for beneficial, low-cost antipsychotics, which require minimal monitoring. We wanted to compare oral haloperidol, as one of the most available antipsychotics in these settings, with a second-generation antipsychotic, olanzapine.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol compared to olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia study-based register of trials, which is based on monthly searches of CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Embase, ISRCTN, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed and WHO ICTRP. We screened the references of all included studies. We contacted relevant authors of trials for additional information where clarification was required or where data were incomplete. The register was last searched on 14 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing haloperidol with olanzapine for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in global state, relapse, clinically important change in mental state, extrapyramidal side effects, weight increase, clinically important change in quality of life and leaving the study early due to adverse effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently evaluated and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial or harmful outcome (NNTB or NNTH) with 95% CI. For continuous data, we estimated mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% CIs. For all included studies, we assessed risk of bias (RoB 1) and we used the GRADE approach to create a summary of findings table.
RESULTS
We included 68 studies randomising 9132 participants. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in clinically important change in global state (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.02; 6 studies, 3078 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in relapse (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.02; 7 studies, 1499 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in overall mental state compared to olanzapine (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; 13 studies, 1210 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every eight people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this improvement. The evidence suggests that haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects compared to olanzapine (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.28 to 5.02; 14 studies, 3290 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every three people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one additional person would experience extrapyramidal side effects. For weight gain, the evidence suggests that there may be a large reduction in the risk with haloperidol compared to olanzapine (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; 18 studies, 4302 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 10 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience weight increase. A single study suggests that haloperidol may reduce the incidence of clinically important change in quality of life compared to olanzapine (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91; 828 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every nine people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience clinically important improvement in quality of life. Haloperidol may result in an increase in the incidence of leaving the study early due to adverse effects compared to olanzapine (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.47; 21 studies, 5047 participants; low-certainty evidence). For every 22 people treated with haloperidol instead of olanzapine, one fewer person would experience this outcome. Thirty otherwise relevant studies and several endpoints from 14 included studies could not be evaluated due to inconsistencies and poor transparency of several parameters. Furthermore, even within studies that were included, it was often not possible to use data for the same reasons. Risk of bias differed substantially for different outcomes and the certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The most common risks of bias leading to downgrading of the evidence were blinding (performance bias) and selective reporting (reporting bias).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low to very low for the main outcomes in this review, making it difficult to draw reliable conclusions. We are very uncertain whether there is a difference between haloperidol and olanzapine in terms of clinically important global state and relapse. Olanzapine may result in a slightly greater overall clinically important change in mental state and in a clinically important change in quality of life. Different side effect profiles were noted: haloperidol may result in a large increase in extrapyramidal side effects and olanzapine in a large increase in weight gain. The drug of choice needs to take into account side effect profiles and the preferences of the individual. These findings and the recent inclusion of olanzapine alongside haloperidol in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines should increase the likelihood of it becoming more easily available in low- and middle- income countries, thereby improving choice and providing a greater ability to respond to side effects for people with lived experience of schizophrenia. There is a need for additional research using appropriate and equivalent dosages of these drugs. Some of this research needs to be done in low- and middle-income settings and should actively seek to account for factors relevant to these. Research on antipsychotics needs to be person-centred and prioritise factors that are of interest to people with lived experience of schizophrenia.
Conference Material > Slide Presentation
Yang SL, Gonzalez M, Hazaea Mohammed HA, Lim SY, Ferreras E, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2024. 16 May 2024; DOI:10.57740/Rcembdt4Bk
Conference Material > Abstract
Yang SL, Gonzalez M, Hazaea Mohammed HA, Lim SY, Ferreras E, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2024. 16 May 2024; DOI:10.57740/utH6tREN
INTRODUCTION
Inpatient Therapeutic Feeding Centre (ITFC) in Abs General Hospital, Yemen, provides nutrition treatment and management of medical complications to children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Abs and surrounding areas. In the past 2 years, the monthly mortality rate for children younger than 14 years averaged at 2.5–5% during non-peak months (Médecins Sans Frontières [MSF] indicator threshold for ITFC is 5%), but it increased to 7% during the peak months. We aimed to describe ITFC patients’ demographic, anthropometric, and clinical variables, and assess their association with inpatient mortality.
METHODS
We conducted an unmatched case-control study with patients aged <14 years who attended IFTC between January and December 2022. Cases were patients for whom the ITFC exit was recorded as “death” (n=106), and controls were those with the exit recorded as “discharged”, selected via systematic random sampling (n=218). Descriptive statistics were performed for all variables. We assessed associations with mortality by calculating adjusted odds ratios (aORs) via multivariable logistic regression, controlling for factors significant in the univariable analysis.
RESULTS
About 77% of patients were aged ≥6 months (71/106 cases and 178/218 controls). Gender distribution was even in both groups. The median mid-upper arm circumference was 88 mm in patients aged <6 months and 104 mm in those aged ≥6 months; 89% of the patients had weight-for-height Z score of <–3. The most common diagnoses at death were pneumonia (38%), gastroenteritis (24%), and sepsis (23%). Patients who lived at the three districts to the north of Abs had significantly higher odds of death (crude ORs 3.47, 3.64, and 6.07) than patients from Abs districts. Having shock (aOR 29.2, 95% CI 6.61–151), hypoglycaemia (9.33, 2.98–32.2), and sepsis (7.52, 2.60–24.1) were strongly associated with inpatient mortality. Other significant risk factors for mortality included age (aOR 1.07, 1.03–1.11), high paediatric early warning score (1.14, 1.01–1.30), being given intravenous fluid without documented shock (3.64, 1.20–12.6), respiratory distress (4.36, 1.47–13.8), congenital heart disease (5.44, 1.42–22.5), and hepatomegaly (6.78, 1.45–36.0). Several medical complications were found exclusively among deceased patients (e.g., electrolyte disturbance, hypothermia, and coma). Among those who received rehydration treatment (n=280), plan B with ReSoMal was the least used plan (15%).
CONCLUSION
We identified important demographic and clinical factors associated with ITFC mortality. Geographical disparity suggests a need for healthcare gap and access evaluation to the affected regions. Prompt recognition of shock, hypoglycaemia, sepsis, and other significant clinical factors would enable early intervention and closer patient monitoring. Lastly, this study highlights the importance of adherence to fluid management guideline.
Inpatient Therapeutic Feeding Centre (ITFC) in Abs General Hospital, Yemen, provides nutrition treatment and management of medical complications to children affected by the humanitarian crisis in Abs and surrounding areas. In the past 2 years, the monthly mortality rate for children younger than 14 years averaged at 2.5–5% during non-peak months (Médecins Sans Frontières [MSF] indicator threshold for ITFC is 5%), but it increased to 7% during the peak months. We aimed to describe ITFC patients’ demographic, anthropometric, and clinical variables, and assess their association with inpatient mortality.
METHODS
We conducted an unmatched case-control study with patients aged <14 years who attended IFTC between January and December 2022. Cases were patients for whom the ITFC exit was recorded as “death” (n=106), and controls were those with the exit recorded as “discharged”, selected via systematic random sampling (n=218). Descriptive statistics were performed for all variables. We assessed associations with mortality by calculating adjusted odds ratios (aORs) via multivariable logistic regression, controlling for factors significant in the univariable analysis.
RESULTS
About 77% of patients were aged ≥6 months (71/106 cases and 178/218 controls). Gender distribution was even in both groups. The median mid-upper arm circumference was 88 mm in patients aged <6 months and 104 mm in those aged ≥6 months; 89% of the patients had weight-for-height Z score of <–3. The most common diagnoses at death were pneumonia (38%), gastroenteritis (24%), and sepsis (23%). Patients who lived at the three districts to the north of Abs had significantly higher odds of death (crude ORs 3.47, 3.64, and 6.07) than patients from Abs districts. Having shock (aOR 29.2, 95% CI 6.61–151), hypoglycaemia (9.33, 2.98–32.2), and sepsis (7.52, 2.60–24.1) were strongly associated with inpatient mortality. Other significant risk factors for mortality included age (aOR 1.07, 1.03–1.11), high paediatric early warning score (1.14, 1.01–1.30), being given intravenous fluid without documented shock (3.64, 1.20–12.6), respiratory distress (4.36, 1.47–13.8), congenital heart disease (5.44, 1.42–22.5), and hepatomegaly (6.78, 1.45–36.0). Several medical complications were found exclusively among deceased patients (e.g., electrolyte disturbance, hypothermia, and coma). Among those who received rehydration treatment (n=280), plan B with ReSoMal was the least used plan (15%).
CONCLUSION
We identified important demographic and clinical factors associated with ITFC mortality. Geographical disparity suggests a need for healthcare gap and access evaluation to the affected regions. Prompt recognition of shock, hypoglycaemia, sepsis, and other significant clinical factors would enable early intervention and closer patient monitoring. Lastly, this study highlights the importance of adherence to fluid management guideline.
Conference Material > Poster
Yang SL, Gonzalez M, Hazaea Mohammed HA, Lim SY, Ferreras E, et al.
MSF Paediatric Days 2024. 3 May 2024; DOI:10.57740/ahq9-t438
Conference Material > Video
Yang SL, Gonzalez M, Hazaea Mohammed HA, Lim SY, Ferreras E, et al.
MSF Paediatric Days 2024. 3 May 2024
Conference Material > Poster
Martinez Torre S, Sagrado MJ, Carreño C, Llosa AE
MSF Paediatric Days 2024. 3 May 2024; DOI:10.57740/WieV9oT
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2 May 2024; Volume 11 (Issue 5); ofae221.; DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofae221
Moretó-Planas L, Mahajan R, Fidelle Nyikayo L, Ajack YBP, Tut Chol B, et al.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2 May 2024; Volume 11 (Issue 5); ofae221.; DOI:10.1093/ofid/ofae221
BACKGROUND
Over half of childhood tuberculosis (TB) remains undiagnosed yearly. WHO recommends Xpert-Ultra as a first paediatric diagnosis test, but microbiological confirmation remains low. We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of Xpert-Ultra on stool and urine in presumptive paediatric TB cases in two high-TB burden settings.
METHODS
This Médecins sans Frontières cross-sectional multicentric study took place at Simão Mendes hospital, Guinea-Bissau (July 2019 to April 2020) and in Malakal hospital, South Sudan (April 2021 to June 2023). Children 6 months to 15 years with presumptive TB underwent clinical and laboratory assessment, with one respiratory and/or extrapulmonary sample (gold standard (GS)), one stool and one urine specimen analysed with Xpert-Ultra.
RESULTS
A total of 563 children were enrolled in the study, 133 from Bissau, 400 from Malakal; 30 were excluded. Confirmation of TB was achieved in 75 (14.1%) while 248 (46.5%) had unconfirmed TB. Of 553 with GS specimen, the overall diagnostic yield was 12.4% (66/533). A total of 493 and 524 samples were used to evaluate Xpert-Ultra on stool and on urine, respectively. Compared to GS, sensitivity and specificity of Xpert-Ultra on stool were 62.5%(95%CI:49.4-74) and 98.3%(95%CI:96.7-99.2), whereas on urine were 13.9%(95%CI:7.5-24.3) and 99.4%(95%CI:98.1-99.8), respectively. Nine patients were positive on stool and/or urine but negative on GS.
CONCLUSIONS
Xpert-Ultra on stool showed moderate to high sensitivity and high specificity when compared to GS and an added diagnostic yield when GS was negative. Xpert-Ultra on stool was useful in extrapulmonary cases. Xpert-Ultra in urine showed low test performance.
Over half of childhood tuberculosis (TB) remains undiagnosed yearly. WHO recommends Xpert-Ultra as a first paediatric diagnosis test, but microbiological confirmation remains low. We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of Xpert-Ultra on stool and urine in presumptive paediatric TB cases in two high-TB burden settings.
METHODS
This Médecins sans Frontières cross-sectional multicentric study took place at Simão Mendes hospital, Guinea-Bissau (July 2019 to April 2020) and in Malakal hospital, South Sudan (April 2021 to June 2023). Children 6 months to 15 years with presumptive TB underwent clinical and laboratory assessment, with one respiratory and/or extrapulmonary sample (gold standard (GS)), one stool and one urine specimen analysed with Xpert-Ultra.
RESULTS
A total of 563 children were enrolled in the study, 133 from Bissau, 400 from Malakal; 30 were excluded. Confirmation of TB was achieved in 75 (14.1%) while 248 (46.5%) had unconfirmed TB. Of 553 with GS specimen, the overall diagnostic yield was 12.4% (66/533). A total of 493 and 524 samples were used to evaluate Xpert-Ultra on stool and on urine, respectively. Compared to GS, sensitivity and specificity of Xpert-Ultra on stool were 62.5%(95%CI:49.4-74) and 98.3%(95%CI:96.7-99.2), whereas on urine were 13.9%(95%CI:7.5-24.3) and 99.4%(95%CI:98.1-99.8), respectively. Nine patients were positive on stool and/or urine but negative on GS.
CONCLUSIONS
Xpert-Ultra on stool showed moderate to high sensitivity and high specificity when compared to GS and an added diagnostic yield when GS was negative. Xpert-Ultra on stool was useful in extrapulmonary cases. Xpert-Ultra in urine showed low test performance.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
E Clinical Medicine. 3 December 2023; Volume 67; 102362.; DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102362
Torre SM, Sordo L, Glaría CC, Llosa AE, Umar RD, et al.
E Clinical Medicine. 3 December 2023; Volume 67; 102362.; DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102362
BACKGROUND
Understanding and optimising mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions in humanitarian crises is crucial, particularly for the most prevalent mental health conditions in conflict settings: anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. However, research on what is the most appropriate length of psychological intervention is lacking in this setting. We aimed to establish which factors are most closely related to improvement and to determine the required number of consultations needed to achieve this improvement.
METHODS
We retrospectively analysed records from 9,028 patients allocated to treatment for anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic symptoms from the MHPSS programme in Borno State, Nigeria, from January 2018 to December 2019. Patient characteristics, severity (Clinical Global Impression of Severity Scale, CGI-S scale), and clinical improvement were assessed by an attending counsellor (CGI-I scale) and by the patient (Mental Health Global State, MHGS scale). Improvement was defined as scores 1, 2, and 3 in the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale, and as a decrease of at least 4 points in the MHGS scale. We investigated the associations between the category of symptoms, the severity of illness, and improvement of symptoms using multivariable logistic regression. We used Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves to assess the number of consultations (i.e., time of treatment) needed to achieve improvement of symptoms, by symptom category and symptom severity.
FINDINGS
The patients included were referred to treatment for anxiety (n = 3462), depression (n = 3970), or post-traumatic symptoms (n = 1596). Median age was 31 years (range 16–103), and 84.3% were female. Patients categorised as severe were less likely to present improvement according to the CGI-I scale (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05–0.25), while none of the other categories of symptoms showed significant results. Overall, three or more consultations were associated with improvement in both scales (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.47–8.57 for CGI-I; and OR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36–3.90 for MHGS). KM curves for the category of symptoms showed that around 90% of patients with anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic symptoms, as well as those with mild or moderate severity, presented improvement after three consultations, compared with six consultations for those with severe symptoms.
INTERPRETATION
Classification by severity among patients with anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic symptoms could predict the probability of improvement, whereas classification by symptoms could not. Our study highlights the importance of classifying patient severity in MHPSS programmes to plan and implement the appropriate duration of care. A major limitation was the number of patients lost to follow up after the first consultation and excluded from the logistic regression and KM analysis.
Understanding and optimising mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) interventions in humanitarian crises is crucial, particularly for the most prevalent mental health conditions in conflict settings: anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. However, research on what is the most appropriate length of psychological intervention is lacking in this setting. We aimed to establish which factors are most closely related to improvement and to determine the required number of consultations needed to achieve this improvement.
METHODS
We retrospectively analysed records from 9,028 patients allocated to treatment for anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic symptoms from the MHPSS programme in Borno State, Nigeria, from January 2018 to December 2019. Patient characteristics, severity (Clinical Global Impression of Severity Scale, CGI-S scale), and clinical improvement were assessed by an attending counsellor (CGI-I scale) and by the patient (Mental Health Global State, MHGS scale). Improvement was defined as scores 1, 2, and 3 in the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale, and as a decrease of at least 4 points in the MHGS scale. We investigated the associations between the category of symptoms, the severity of illness, and improvement of symptoms using multivariable logistic regression. We used Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves to assess the number of consultations (i.e., time of treatment) needed to achieve improvement of symptoms, by symptom category and symptom severity.
FINDINGS
The patients included were referred to treatment for anxiety (n = 3462), depression (n = 3970), or post-traumatic symptoms (n = 1596). Median age was 31 years (range 16–103), and 84.3% were female. Patients categorised as severe were less likely to present improvement according to the CGI-I scale (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05–0.25), while none of the other categories of symptoms showed significant results. Overall, three or more consultations were associated with improvement in both scales (OR 3.55, 95% CI 1.47–8.57 for CGI-I; and OR 3.04, 95% CI 2.36–3.90 for MHGS). KM curves for the category of symptoms showed that around 90% of patients with anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic symptoms, as well as those with mild or moderate severity, presented improvement after three consultations, compared with six consultations for those with severe symptoms.
INTERPRETATION
Classification by severity among patients with anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic symptoms could predict the probability of improvement, whereas classification by symptoms could not. Our study highlights the importance of classifying patient severity in MHPSS programmes to plan and implement the appropriate duration of care. A major limitation was the number of patients lost to follow up after the first consultation and excluded from the logistic regression and KM analysis.
Conference Material > Poster
Moreto-Planas L, Mahajan R, Sagrado MJ, Flevaud L, Gallo J, et al.
MSF Scientific Day International 2023. 7 June 2023; DOI:10.57740/0xmg-7p42