Global Burden Disease Estimates for Major Depressive Disorders (MDD): A review of diagnostic instruments used in studies of prevalence.

Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates have significant policy implications nationally and internationally. Disease burden metrics, particularly for depression, have played a critical role in raising governmental awareness of mental health and in calculating the economic cost of depression. Recently, the World Health Organization ranked depression as the single largest contributor to global disability. The main aim of this paper was to assess the basis upon which GBD prevalence estimates for major depressive disorder (MDD) were made. We identify the instruments used in the 2019 GBD estimates and provide a descriptive assessment of the five most frequently used instruments. The majority of country studies, 356/566 (62.9%), used general mental health screeners or structured/semi-structured interview guides, 98/566 (17.3%) of the studies used dedicated depression screeners, and 112 (19.8%) used other tools for assessing depression. Thus, most of the studies used instruments that were not designed to make a diagnosis of depression or assess depression severity. Our results are congruent with and extend previous research that has identified critical flaws in the data underpinning the GBD estimates for MDD. Despite the widespread promotion of these prevalence estimates, caution is needed before using them to inform public policy and mental health interventions. This is particularly important in lower-income countries where resources are scarce.

A critical appraisal of the quality of data submitted by sub-Saharan African cancer registries to GLOBOCAN 2020.

Objectives: (a) To critically appraise the quality of data submitted by sub-Saharan African (SSA) cancer registries to GLOBOCAN 2020 and (b) compare the quality of data of the registries common to GLOBOCAN 2008 and 2020. Design: Critical appraisal of cancer registry data quality using the Parkin and Bray framework. Setting and Participants: GLOBOCAN 2020 cancer registry estimates for 46 countries in SSA. Forty-three registries in 31 (SSA) countries were identified from the GLOBCAN 2020 supplementary documents, of which data from 28 registries in 23 sub-Saharan African countries were publicly available. Main outcomes measures: Data quality for 15 variables in four domains (comparability, validity, timeliness and completeness) were appraised using the Parkin and Bray framework. Results from the appraisal of GLOBOCAN 2020 sources were compared with previous findings for GLOBOCAN 2008. Results: Compared with GLOBOCAN 2008, GLOBOCAN 2020 country coverage had increased from 21 to 31 countries with 15 countries having no established registries. Out of a total possible score of 15 for data quality, 18 of the 28 publicly available GLOBOCAN 2020 registries fulfilled a score of 5 or more compared with seven registries in GLOBOCAN 2008. Of the 17 registries common to GLOBOCAN 2008 and 2020, nine showed an improvement in data quality. Conclusion: Country coverage and data quality have improved since GLOBOCAN 2008, however, overall data quality and coverage remain poor. GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates should be used with caution when allocating resources.

Registration of antimicrobials, Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania, 2018.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of essential and non-essential antimicrobial medicines that are registered on the drug registers in Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania. METHODS: We categorized all antimicrobials on the national drug registers and essential medicines lists of the three countries using the British National Formulary. We also categorized all antibiotics according to the World Health Organization access, watch and reserve (AWaRe) classification. We calculated the proportions of essential and non-essential antimicrobials that were registered by antimicrobial class and AWaRe classification. FINDINGS: In 2018, Kenya had 2105 registered antimicrobials, Uganda had 1563 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 1327. Of these medicines, 1353 (64.3%) were non-essential in Kenya, 798 (51.1%) in Uganda and 706 (53.2%) in the United Republic of Tanzania. Kenya had 160 antimicrobials on its national essential medicines lists, Uganda had 187 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 182; of these, 33 (20.7%), 50 (26.7%) and 52 (28.6%) were not registered, respectively. High proportions of antimycobacterial and antiparasitic medicines were not registered. Of essential access antibiotics, 14.3% (4/28) were not registered in Kenya, 8.6% (3/35) in Uganda and 20.5% (8/39) in the United Republic of Tanzania, nor were 25.0% (3/12) of watch antibiotics in Kenya, 14.3% (2/14) in Uganda and 19.1% (4/21) in the United Republic of Tanzania. CONCLUSION: Suboptimal registration of essential antimicrobials and over-registration of non-essential antimicrobials may encourage inappropriate use, especially since non-essential antimicrobials do not appear on national treatment guidelines. Countries should prioritize registration of the antimicrobial medicines on their essential medicines lists.

Registration of antimicrobials, Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania, 2018

Objective. To determine the proportion of essential and non-essential antimicrobial medicines that are registered on the drug registers in Kenya, Uganda and United Republic of Tanzania.Methods We categorized all antimicrobials on the national drug registers and essential medicines lists of the three countries using the British National Formulary. We also categorized all antibiotics according to the World Health Organization access, watch and reserve (AWaRe) classification. We calculated the proportions of essential and non-essential antimicrobials that were registered by antimicrobial class and AWaRe classification. Findings In 2018, Kenya had 2105 registered antimicrobials, Uganda had 1563 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 1327. Of these medicines, 1353 (64.3%) were non-essential in Kenya, 798 (51.1%) in Uganda and 706 (53.2%) in the United Republic of Tanzania. Kenya had 160 antimicrobials on its national essential medicines lists, Uganda had 187 and the United Republic of Tanzania had 182; of these, 33 (20.7%), 50 (26.7%) and 52 (28.6%) were not registered, respectively. High proportions of antimycobacterial and antiparasitic medicines were not registered. Of essential access antibiotics, 14.3% (4/28) were not registered in Kenya, 8.6% (3/35) in Uganda and 20.5% (8/39) in the United Republic of Tanzania, nor were 25.0% (3/12) of watch antibiotics in Kenya, 14.3% (2/14) in Uganda and 19.1% (4/21) in the United Republic of Tanzania. Conclusion Suboptimal registration of essential antimicrobials and over-registration of non-essential antimicrobials may encourage inappropriate use, especially since non-essential antimicrobials do not appear on national treatment guidelines. Countries should prioritize registration of the antimicrobial medicines on their essential medicines lists