Background Community‐based primary‐level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of PW‐led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care. Search methods MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019). Selection criteria Randomised trials of PW‐led or collaborative‐care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs. PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non‐health professionals (CPs). Data collection and analysis Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality‐of‐life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects. Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1‐6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post‐intervention. Main results Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs). Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination. Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2. “Probably”, “may”, or “uncertain” indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence. Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW‐led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD ‐0.59, 95%CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD ‐0.47, 95%CI ‐0.8 to ‐0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative‐care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little‐or‐no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly red...

Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection causes cervical cancer. More than 80% of those diagnosed with cervical cancer live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The World Health Organization recommends vaccination as a public health measure against cervical cancer. Communication interventions are able to change how people think about vaccination and are thus instrumental in addressing vaccine hesitancy. Our aim was to provide a broad scoping overview of the available evidence on communication with adolescents, parents, and other stakeholders around HPV vaccination for adolescents, with a specific focus on LMICs. Methods We conducted a systematic scoping overview of systematic reviews addressing a range of questions regarding communication around HPV vaccination. We considered reviews published between 2007 and 2018 focusing on communication around HPV vaccination and that searched for qualitative or quantitative studies for inclusion. We searched the Epistemonikos database which includes reviews from multiple electronic databases. Two overview authors screened titles and abstracts and examined potentially eligible reviews in full text. Data extraction was performed by one overview author and verified by a second. We assessed the reliability of the included reviews using an adapted version of AMSTAR 2. Results We included twelve reviews in our overview. Four reviews assessed the effectiveness of communication interventions. These interventions intended to inform or educate about HPV and HPV vaccination, such as videos and fact sheets, or to remind or recall, such as text message reminders. Eight reviews assessed factors associated with HPV vaccination uptake, including communication-related factors such as whether the vaccine was recommended by a physician and people’s knowledge regarding the vaccine. Nine reviews searched for studies from LMICs, but most found only a small number of studies from these countries. Conclusions The small number of studies identified from LMICs is of concern as these countries face the largest burden of disease related to HPV. This scoping overview also found and excluded a number of reviews because of important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for future reviews to use appropriate methods. The overview indicates areas in which further primary studies are needed on HPV vaccination communication in LMICs. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework https://osf.io/agzb4/ Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1100-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines (WHO EML) has played a critical role in guiding the country-level selection and financing of medicines for more than 4 decades. It continues to be a relevant evidence-based policy that can support universal health coverage (UHC) and access to essential medicines. The objective of this review was to identify factors affecting adaptation and implementation of WHO EML at the national level. Methods and findings We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis by searching 10 databases (including CINAHL, Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science) through October 2021. Primary qualitative studies focused on country-level implementation of WHO EML were included. The qualitative findings were populated in the Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE) checklist, and key themes were identified through an iterative process. We appraised the papers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool and assessed our confidence in the findings using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual). We screened 1,567 unique citations, reviewed 183 full texts, and included 23 studies, from 30 settings. Non-English studies and experiences and perceptions of stakeholders published in gray literature were not collected. Our findings centered around 3 main ideas pertaining to national adaptation and implementation of WHO EML: (1) the importance of designing institutions, governance, and leadership for national medicines lists (NMLs), particularly the consideration of transparency, coordination capacity, legislative mechanisms, managing regional differences, and clinical guidance; (2) the capacity to manage evidence to inform NML updates, including processes for contextualizing global evidence, utilizing local data and expert knowledge, and assessing budget impact, to which locally relevant cost-effectiveness information plays an important role; and (3) the influence of NML on purchasing and prescribing by altering provider incentives, through linkages to systems for financing and procurement and donor influence. Conclusions This qualitative evidence synthesis underscores the complexity and interdependencies inherent to implementation of WHO EML. To maximize the value of NMLs, greater investments should be made in processes and institutions that are needed to support various stages of the implementation pathway from global norms to adjusting prescribed behavior. Moreover, further research on linkages between NMLs, procurement, and the availability of medicines will provide additional insight into optimal NML implementation. Protocol registry PROSPERO CRD42018104112

No abstract