Purpose This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence on behavioural and attitudinal patterns as well as barriers and enablers in Filipino formal help-seeking. Methods Using PRISMA framework, 15 studies conducted in 7 countries on Filipino help-seeking were appraised through narrative synthesis. Results Filipinos across the world have general reluctance and unfavourable attitude towards formal help-seeking despite high rates of psychological distress. They prefer seeking help from close family and friends. Barriers cited by Filipinos living in the Philippines include financial constraints and inaccessibility of services, whereas overseas Filipinos were hampered by immigration status, lack of health insurance, language difficulty, experience of discrimination and lack of acculturation to host culture. Both groups were hindered by self and social stigma attached to mental disorder, and by concern for loss of face, sense of shame, and adherence to Asian values of conformity to norms where mental illness is considered unacceptable. Filipinos are also prevented from seeking help by their sense of resilience and self-reliance, but this is explored only in qualitative studies. They utilize special mental health care only as the last resort or when problems become severe. Other prominent facilitators include perception of distress, influence of social support, financial capacity and previous positive experience in formal help. Conclusion We confirmed the low utilization of mental health services among Filipinos regardless of their locations, with mental health stigma as primary barrier, while resilience and self-reliance as coping strategies were cited in qualitative studies. Social support and problem severity were cited as prominent facilitators.

ObjectivesNon-pharmacological treatments are an important aspect of dementia care. A wide range of interventions have been trialled for mild dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, the variety of outcome measures used in these trials makes it difficult to make meaningful comparisons. The objective of this study is to map trends in which outcome measures are used in trials of non-pharmacological treatments in MCI and mild dementia.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesEMBASE, PsychINFO, Medline and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception until February 2018. An additional search was conducted in April 2019EligibilityWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing non-pharmacological interventions for people diagnosed with MCI or mild dementia. Studies were restricted to full RCTs; observational, feasibility and pilot studies were not included.Charting methodsAll outcome measures used by included studies were extracted and grouped thematically. Trends in the types of outcome measures used were explored by type of intervention, country and year of publication.Results91 studies were included in this review. We extracted 358 individual outcome measures, of which 78 (22%) were used more than once. Cognitive measures were the most frequently used, with the Mini-Mental State Examination being the most popular.ConclusionsOur findings highlight an inconsistency in the use of outcome measures. Cognition has been prioritised over other domains, despite previous research highlighting the importance of quality of life and caregiver measures. To ensure a robust evidence base, more research is needed to highlight which outcome measures should be used over others.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018102649.

No abstract

Background The Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is a commonly used psychometric scale of depression. A four-factor structure (depressed affect, positive affect, somatic symptoms, and interpersonal difficulties) was initially identified in an American sample aged 18 to 65. Despite emerging evidence, a latent structure has not been established in adolescents. This review aimed to investigate the factor structure of the CES-D in adolescents. Methods We searched Web of Science, PsychINFO and Scopus and included peer-reviewed, original studies assessing the factor structure of the 20-item CES-D in adolescents aged ≤18. Two independent researchers screened results and extracted data. Results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were primarily from school-based samples in the USA or Asia. Studies that conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; n = 9) reported a four-factor structure consistent with the original factor structure; these studies were primarily USA-based. Conversely, studies that conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) reported distinct two or three factor structures (n = 4) and were primarily based in Asia. Limitations Studies in a non-English language and those that included individuals aged > 18 years were excluded. Ethnic or cultural differences as well as different analytical methods impacted generalisability of results. The use of CFA as the primary analysis may have biased towards a four-factor structure. Conclusions A four-factor CES-D structure was an appropriate fit for adolescents in Western countries; further research is required to determine the fit in in Asian countries. This has important implications for clinical use of the scale. Future research should consider how cultural differences shape the experience of depression in adolescents.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES While it is acknowledged that minority ethnic (ME) groups across international settings face barriers to accessing care for dementia, it is not clear whether ME groups access services less frequently as a result. The objective of this review is to examine whether ME groups have longer delays before accessing dementia/memory services, higher use of acute care and crisis services and lower use of routine care services based on existing literature. We also examined whether ME groups had higher dementia severity or lower cognition when presenting to memory services. DESIGN Systematic review with narrative synthesis. SETTING Nonresidential medical, psychiatric, memory, and emergency services. PARTICIPANTS Twenty studies totaling 94,431 older adults with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. MEASUREMENTS We searched Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, Global Health, and PsycINFO from inception to November 2018 for peer‐reviewed observational studies which quantified ethnic minority differences in nonresidential health service use in people with dementia. Narrative synthesis was used to analyze findings. RESULTS Twenty studies were included, mostly from the U.S. (n = 13), as well as the UK (n = 4), Australia (n = 1), Belgium (n = 1), and the Netherlands (n = 1). There was little evidence that ME groups in any country accessed routine care at different rates than comparison groups, although studies may have been underpowered. There was strong evidence that African American/Black groups had higher use of hospital inpatient services versus U.S. comparison groups. Primary care and emergency services were less well studied. Study quality was mixed, and there was a large amount of variability in the way ethnicity and service use outcomes were ascertained and defined. CONCLUSION There is evidence that some ME groups, such as Black/African American groups in the U.S., may use more acute care services than comparison populations, but less evidence for differences in routine care use. Research is sparse, especially outside the U.S.