Background: Anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) contribute significantly to disability adjusted life years in low-to middle-income countries (LMICs). Screening has been proposed to improve identification and management of these disorders, but little is known about the validity of screening tools for these disorders. We conducted a systematic review of validated screening tools for detecting anxiety and PTSD in LMICs. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and PsychINFO were searched (inception-April 22, 2020). Eligible studies (1) screened for anxiety disorders and/or PTSD; (2) reported sensitivity and specificity for a given cutoff value; (3) were conducted in LMICs; and (4) compared screening results to diagnostic classifications based on a reference standard. Screening tool, cutoff , disorder, region, country, and clinical population were extracted for each study, and we assessed study quality. Accuracy results were organized based on screening tool, cutoff , and specific disorder. Accuracy estimates for the same cutoff for the same screening tool and disorder were combined via meta-analysis. Results: Of 6322 unique citations identified, 58 articles including 77 screening tools were included. There were 46, 19 and 12 validations for anxiety, PTSD, and combined depression and anxiety, respectively. Continentally, Asia had the most validations (35). Regionally, South Asia (11) had the most validations, followed by South Africa (10) and West Asia (9). The Kessler-10 (7) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale (GAD-7) (6) were the most commonly validated tools for anxiety disorders, while the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (3) and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (3) were the most commonly validated tools for PTSD. Most studies (29) had the lowest quality rating (unblinded). Due to incomplete reporting, we could meta-analyze results from only two studies, which involved the GAD-7 (cut-off ≥10, pooled sensitivity = 76%, pooled specificity = 64%). Conclusion: Use of brief screening instruments can bring much needed attention and research opportunities to various at-risk LMIC populations. However, many have been validated in inadequately designed studies, precluding any general recommendation for specific tools in LMICs. Locally validated screening tools for anxiety and PTSD need further evaluation in well-designed studies to assess whether they can improve the detection and management of these common disorders.

Abstract Background: Anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) contribute significantly to disability adjusted life years in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs). Screening has been proposed to improve identification and management of these disorders, but little is known about the validity of screening tools for these disorders. We conducted a systematic review of validated screening tools for detecting anxiety and PTSD in LMICs. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health and PsychINFO were searched (inception-January 10, 2019). Eligible studies (1) screened for anxiety disorders and/or PTSD; (2) reported sensitivity and specificity for a given cut-off value; (3) were conducted in LMICs; and (4) compared screening results to diagnostic classifications based on a reference standard. Screening tool, cut-off, disorder, region, country, and clinical population were extracted for each included study. We assed quality using a modified version of Greenhalgh’s ten item checklist. Accuracy results were organized based on screening tool, cut-off, and specific disorder. Accuracy estimates for the same cut-off for the same screening tool and disorder were combined via meta-analysis.ResultsOf 5343 unique citations identified, 57 articles including 75 screening tools were included. There were 44, 20 and 11 validations for anxiety, PTSD, and combined depression and anxiety, respectively. Continentally, Asia had the most validations (34). Regionally, South Asia (10) had the most validations, followed by West Asia (9) and South Africa (9). The Kessler-10 (7) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item scale (GAD-7) (6) were the most commonly validated tools for anxiety disorders, while the Harvard Trauma Questionnaire (3) and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (3) were the most commonly validated tools for PTSD. Most studies (27) had the lowest quality rating (unblinded) followed by good (21). Due to incomplete reporting, we combined only two sets of accuracy values in meta-analysis (GAD-7 cut-off ≥10; sensitivity: 76%, specificity: 64%).ConclusionUse of brief screening instruments can bring much needed attention and research opportunities to various at-risk LMIC populations, yet many have been validated in inadequately designed studies. Locally validated screening tools for anxiety and PTSD need further evaluation and well-designed studies, including clinical trials, to determine whether their use can reduce the burden of disease. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019121794

Background Common mental health disorders (CMDs), including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may worsen both HIV and drug use outcomes, yet feasible tools to accurately identify CMDs have received limited study in this population. We aimed to validate the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Generalized Anxiety Disorder screen (GAD-7) and Primary Care PTSD screen for DSM-5 (PC-PTSD-5) in a methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) patient population in Hanoi, Vietnam. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey. The PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PC-PTSD-5 were administered to MMT patients. A blinded interviewer administered the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) as the reference gold standard. Total scores of each tool were compared with the MINI diagnoses using a receiver operating characteristic curves, and we identified the optimal respective cut-off scores using the Youden’s Index. Results We enrolled 400 MMT patients. Approximately 99.3% were male (n = 397) and 21.8% (n = 87) were HIV positive. The prevalence of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and PTSD, respectively, was 10.5, 4 and 2%. Optimal cut-off scores for the PHQ-9, GAD-7 and PC-PTSD were ≥ 5, ≥3, and ≥ 4 with a sensitivity/specificity of 95.2%/91.9, 93.8%/87.5, and 62.5%/95.2%. Conclusions The prevalence of CMDs in the MMT population was lower than expected. A lower cut-off score may be considered when screening for CMDs in this population. Further research should investigate the validity of somatic symptom-based screening tools among other drug-using or MMT populations.

No abstract

Background Injection drug use drives HIV transmission in Southeast Asia, where around a quarter of users are living with HIV. Vietnam developed Methadone Maintenance Therapy (MMT) programs to reduce unsafe drug abuse. Common mental health disorders (CMD), including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can worsen MMT outcomes and are highly prevalent among people living with HIV (PLH). We aimed to characterize HIV and CMD among MMT patients and assess the impact of HIV and CMD on MMT engagement outcomes in Hanoi, Vietnam. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at an urban MMT clinic in Hanoi. Participants were screened for CMD with the relevant sections of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Tabular comparisons and regression models were used to understand the association of HIV and CMD with substance use and methadone compliance. Results Of the 400 MMT participants, 22% were living with HIV, 11% a CMD, 27% reported injection drug use, and 27% reported methadone noncompliance. Around 17% of those with HIV also had a CMD. Reporting non injection and injection drug use were each higher among those with CMD regardless of HIV status. In addition, reporting any drug use was much higher among those with both HIV and CMD than among those with neither (73% vs 31%, p value 0.001). While methadone noncompliance was lower among PLH than among those without HIV (16.3% vs 30.1%, p value 0.010), noncompliance was higher among those with CMD than among those without (40.5% vs 25.6%, p value 0.045). Among those without HIV, noncompliance was higher among those with CMD than among those without, but among those with HIV, the opposite relationship was observed. Conclusion There is complex overlap between substance use and methadone noncompliance among MMT patients living with HIV, CMD or both. In this population, we found a high prevalence of CMD and substance use among PLH, and a high prevalence of substance use and methadone noncompliance among those with CMD. Prioritizing provision of mental health care services to MMT patients living with HIV can help improve engagement with substance use disorder treatment and reduce the risk of HIV transmission.