No abstract

IntroductionAlthough cash transfer programmes are not explicitly designed to improve mental health, by reducing poverty and improving the life chances of children and young people, they may also improve their mental health. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the evidence on the effectiveness of cash transfers to improve the mental health of children and young people in low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsWe searched Pubmed, EBSCOhost, Scientific Electronic Library Online, ISI Web of Science and Social Sciences Citation Index and grey literature (from January 2000 to July 2020) for studies which quantitatively assessed the impact of cash transfers on mental health in young people (aged 0–24 years), using a design that incorporated a control group. We extracted Cohen’s d effects size and used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis on studies that measured depressive symptoms, I2 statistic and assessment of study quality.ResultsWe identified 12 116 articles for screening, of which 12 were included in the systematic review (covering 13 interventions) and seven in the meta-analysis assessing impact on depressive symptoms specifically. There was high heterogeneity (I2=95.2) and a high risk of bias (0.38, 95% CIs: −5.08 to 5.85; p=0.86) across studies. Eleven interventions (85%) showed a significant positive impact of cash transfers on at least one mental health outcome in children and young people. However, no study found a positive effect on all mental health outcomes examined, and the meta-analysis showed no impact of cash transfers on depressive symptoms (0.02, 95% CIs: −0.19 to 0.23; p=0.85).ConclusionCash transfers may have positive effects on some mental health outcomes for young people, with no negative effects identified. However, there is high heterogeneity across studies, with some interventions showing no effects. Our review highlights how the effect of cash transfers may vary by social and economic context, culture, design, conditionality and mental health outcome.

Objective:To examine suicide rates among adolescents from six large cities in Brazil and to analyze the relationship between adolescent suicide rates and socioeconomic indicators between 2006 and 2015.Methods:Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the impact of socioeconomic factors – including social inequality and unemployment rates – on adolescent suicide rates.Results:The rate of adolescent suicide increased by 24% over the course of the study period. Social inequality (assessed using the Gini index), was positively associated with overall adolescent suicide rates (β = 10.68; 95%CI = 2.32-19.05; p ≤ 0.012). After disaggregating the findings by age (10-14 and 15-19 years), social inequality was associated with suicide rate only for adolescents aged 15-19 years (β = 9.63; 95%CI = 2.31-16.96; p ≤ 0.005). Disaggregating these findings by sex, the association with economic variables became significant only among females. Males had a higher overall suicide rate than females, and the highest rate was observed in male adolescents aged 15-19 years. Higher levels of unemployment were associated with higher suicide rates.Conclusion:Our findings suggest that socioeconomic indicators, particularly unemployment and social inequality, are relevant social determinants of suicide in adolescence.

ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to investigate how doctors working in primary health care in Latin American address patients with common mental disorders and to investigate how stigma can affect their clinical decisions.MethodsUsing a cross-sectional design, we applied an online self-administered questionnaire to a sample of 550 Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) from Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba and Chile. The questionnaire collected information about sociodemographic variables, training and experience with mental health care. Clinicians’ stigmatizing attitudes towards mental health were measured using the Mental Illness Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA v4). The clinical decisions of PCPs were assessed through three clinical vignettes representing typical cases of depression, anxiety and somatization.ResultsA total of 387 professionals completed the questionnaires (70.3% response rate). The 63.7% of the PCPs felt qualified to diagnose and treat people with common mental disorders. More than 90% of the PCPs from Bolivia, Cuba and Chile agreed to treat the patients presented in the three vignettes. We did not find significant differences between the four countries in the scores of the MICA v4 stigma levels, with a mean = 36.3 and SD = 8.3 for all four countries. Gender (p = .672), age (p = .171), training (p = .673) and years of experience (p = .28) were unrelated to stigma. In the two multivariate regression models, PCPs with high levels of stigma were more likely to refer them to a psychiatrist the patients with depression (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.07 p<0.05) and somatoform symptoms somatoform (OR = 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07, p<0.05) to a psychiatrist.DiscussionThe majority of PCPs in the four countries were inclined to treat patients with depression, anxiety and somatoform symptoms. PCPs with more levels of stigma were more likely to refer the patients with depression and somatoform symptoms to a psychiatrist. Stigmatizing attitudes towards mental disorders by PCPs might be important barriers for people with mental health problems to receive the treatment they need in primary care.