Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study.

Introduction: The burden of multimorbidity is recognised increasingly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), creating a strong emphasis on the need for effective evidence-based interventions. A core outcome set (COS) appropriate for the study of multimorbidity in LMIC contexts does not presently exist. This is required to standardise reporting and contribute to a consistent and cohesive evidence-base to inform policy and practice. We describe the development of two COS for intervention trials aimed at the prevention and treatment of multimorbidity in LMICs. Methods: To generate a comprehensive list of relevant prevention and treatment outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and qualitative interviews with people with multimorbidity and their caregivers living in LMICs. We then used a modified two-round Delphi process to identify outcomes most important to four stakeholder groups with representation from 33 countries (people with multimorbidity/caregivers, multimorbidity researchers, healthcare professionals, and policy makers). Consensus meetings were used to reach agreement on the two final COS. Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1580. Results: The systematic review and qualitative interviews identified 24 outcomes for prevention and 49 for treatment of multimorbidity. An additional 12 prevention, and six treatment outcomes were added from Delphi round one. Delphi round two surveys were completed by 95 of 132 round one participants (72.0%) for prevention and 95 of 133 (71.4%) participants for treatment outcomes. Consensus meetings agreed four outcomes for the prevention COS: (1) Adverse events, (2) Development of new comorbidity, (3) Health risk behaviour, and (4) Quality of life; and four for the treatment COS: (1) Adherence to treatment, (2) Adverse events, (3) Out-of-pocket expenditure, and (4) Quality of life. Conclusion: Following established guidelines, we developed two COS for trials of interventions for multimorbidity prevention and treatment, specific to LMIC contexts. We recommend their inclusion in future trials to meaningfully advance the field of multimorbidity research in LMICs.

Development of a core outcome set for multimorbidity trials in low/middle-income countries (COSMOS): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: 'Multimorbidity' describes the presence of two or more long-term conditions, which can include communicable, non-communicable diseases, and mental disorders. The rising global burden from multimorbidity is well documented, but trial evidence for effective interventions in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs) is limited. Selection of appropriate outcomes is fundamental to trial design to ensure cross-study comparability, but there is currently no agreement on a core outcome set (COS) to include in trials investigating multimorbidity specifically in LMICs. Our aim is to develop international consensus on two COSs for trials of interventions to prevent and treat multimorbidity in LMIC settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following methods recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative, the development of these two COSs will occur in parallel in three stages: (1) generation of a long list of potential outcomes for inclusion; (2) two-round online Delphi surveys and (3) consensus meetings. First, to generate an initial list of outcomes, we will conduct a systematic review of multimorbidity intervention and prevention trials and interviews with people living with multimorbidity and their caregivers in LMICs. Outcomes will be classified using an outcome taxonomy. Two-round Delphi surveys will be used to elicit importance scores for these outcomes from people living with multimorbidity, caregivers, healthcare professionals, policy makers and researchers in LMICs. Finally, consensus meetings including all of these stakeholders will be held to agree outcomes for inclusion in the two COSs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Research Governance Committee of the Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK (HSRGC/2020/409/D:COSMOS). Each participating country/research group will obtain local ethics board approval. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. We will disseminate findings through peer-reviewed open access publications, and presentations at global conferences selected to reach a wide range of LMIC stakeholders. PROSPERO REGISTATION NUMBER: CRD42020197293.

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults with non-communicable diseases.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common in people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. The co-existence of depression and NCDs may affect health behaviours, compliance with treatment, physiological factors, and quality of life. This in turn is associated with worse outcomes for both conditions. Behavioural activation is not currently indicated for the treatment of depression in this population in the UK, but is increasingly being used to treat depression in adults. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with any control group for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with each control group separately (no treatment, waiting list, other psychological therapy, pharmacological treatment, or any other type of treatment as usual) for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CCMD-CTR, CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases, and two trial registers on 4 October 2019 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for depression in participants with NCDs, together with grey literature and reference checking. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in adults with one of four NCDs: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and chronic respiratory conditions. Only participants with a formal diagnosis of both depression and an NCD were eligible. Studies were included if behavioural activation was the main component of the intervention. We included studies with any comparator that was not behavioural activation, and regardless of reported outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, including independent screening of titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, contributing data from 181 participants to the analyses. Both studies recruited participants from US hospital clinics; one included people who were recovering from a stroke and the other women with breast cancer. For both studies, the intervention consisted of eight weeks of face-to-face behavioural therapy, with one study comparing to poststroke treatment as usual and the other comparing to problem-solving therapy. Both studies were at risk of performance bias and potential conflict of interest arising from author involvement in the development of the intervention. For one study, risks of selection bias and reporting bias were unclear and the study was judged at high risk of attrition bias. Treatment efficacy (remission) was greater for behavioural activation than for comparators in the short term (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 2.38; low-certainty evidence) and medium term (RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.08; moderate-certainty evidence), but these estimates lacked precision and effects were reduced in the long term (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.23; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in treatment acceptability in the short term (RR 1.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 4.82) and medium term (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.25 to 3.10) (low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in depression symptoms between behavioural activation and comparators (short term: MD -1.15, 95% CI -2.71 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence). One study found no difference for quality of life (short term: MD 0.40, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence), functioning (short term: MD 2.70, 95% CI -6.99 to 12.39; low-certainty evidence), and anxiety symptoms (short term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -4.50 to 1.10; low-certainty evidence). Neither study reported data on adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this review was not sufficient to draw conclusions on the efficacy and acceptability of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression in adults with NCDs. A future review may wish to include, or focus on, studies of people with subthreshold depression or depression symptoms without a formal diagnosis, as this may inform whether behavioural activation could be used to treat mild or undiagnosed (or both) depressive symptoms in people with NCDs. Evidence from low-resource settings including low- and middle-income countries, for which behavioural activation may offer a feasible alternative to other treatments for depression, would be of interest.

Integrating depression care within NCD provision in Bangladesh and Pakistan: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Co-morbidity of depression with other non-communicable diseases (NCDs) worsens clinical outcomes for both conditions. Low- and middle-income countries need to strengthen mechanisms for detection and management of co-morbid depression within NCDs. The Behavioural Activation for Comorbid Depression in Non-communicable Disease (BEACON) study explored the acceptability and feasibility of integrating a brief depression intervention (behavioural activation, BA) into NCD services in healthcare facilities in Bangladesh and Pakistan. METHODS: Face-to-face qualitative interviews were conducted with 43 patients and 18 health workers attending or working in NCD centres in four healthcare facilities in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and with three policy makers in each country. The interviews addressed four research questions (1) how NCD care is delivered, (2) how NCD patients experience distress, (3) how depression care is integrated within NCD provision, and (4) the challenges and opportunities for integrating a brief depression intervention into usual NCD care. The data were analysed using framework analysis, organised by capability, opportunity and motivation factors, cross-synthesised across countries and participant groups. RESULTS: Patients and health workers described NCD centres as crowded and time pressured, with waiting times as long as five hours, and consultation times as short as five minutes; resulting in some patient frustration. They did not perceive direct links between their distress and their NCD conditions, instead describing worries about family and finance including affordability of NCD services. Health worker and policy maker accounts suggested these NCD centres lacked preparedness for treating depression in the absence of specific guidelines, standard screening tools, recording systems or training. Barriers and drivers to integrating a brief depression intervention reflected capability, opportunity and motivation factors for all participant groups. While generally valuing the purpose, significant challenges included the busy hospital environment, skill deficits and different conceptions of depression. CONCLUSIONS: Given current resource constraints and priorities, integrating a brief psychological intervention at these NCD centres appears premature. An opportune first step calls for responding to patients' expressed concerns on service gaps in provisioning steady and affordable NCD care. Acknowledging differences of conceptions of depression and strengthening psychologically informed NCD care will in turn be required before the introduction of a specific psychological intervention such as BA.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of common mental disorders in people with non-communicable diseases in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental and physical comorbidities is unknown in South Asia, as estimates of mental ill health in patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have predominantly come from studies based in the United States, Europe and Australasia. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises evidence and provides pooled estimates of the prevalence of common mental disorders in adults with non-communicable diseases in South Asia. METHODS: We included prevalence studies of depression and anxiety in adults with diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory conditions in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, published from 1990 onwards in international and country-specific databases. RESULTS: Out of 96 included studies, 83 provided data for random effects meta-analyses. The pooled prevalence of depression was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 26 to 62) for patients with COPD, 40% (95% CI = 34 to 45) for diabetes, 39% (95% CI = 23 to 56) for stroke, 38% (95% CI = 32 to 45) for hypertension, and 37% (95% CI = 30 to 45) for cancer. The pooled prevalence of anxiety based on 28 studies was 29% (95% CI = 22 to 36). Many quality issues were identified in a critical appraisal of included studies, mostly relating to the sampling frame and selection process, the description of the methods and basic data, and the description of non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Depression and anxiety are prevalent and underdiagnosed in people with physical comorbidities in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.